Talk:Cirrus Vision SF50/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images?

any picture release or drawing the jet?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.152.24 (talk) 2 January 2007‎

Name and Designation

While the company initial press release in July 2008 announcing the change of the name of "The Jet" project indicated that the project is called "Cirrus Vision", the later issued official company specs indicate that the complete designation is "Cirrus Vision SJ50". User:216.70.8.163 seems bent on eradicating all mention of the "SJ50" designation from the article on the strength of the initial press release. This particular editor even wants to cause broken links to the German interwiki links in his dislike of the designation used, here and here. The designation is obviously official company policy as otherwise it would not appear on the spec sheets. The "SJ50" designation is also being commonly used by such mainstream aviation media outlets as Avweb, AOPA and Aviation Week and Space Technology and has become part of the commonly used public lexicon for this aircraft. The use of a designation is also in keeping with Cirrus's other designs, as all have designations: VK30 SR20 and SR22.

So what is the problem with the article mentioning and using the company's official designation?

Instead of edit warring to try and eradicate any mention of this designation please explain your reasons here and try to get some consensus for your proposed changes. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Crystal tagged

An editor has tagged the article with: "This article may contain unsourced predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur. Please help improve it by removing unsourced speculative content." I have reviewed the article and cannot see what is unsourced speculative content here. The development of an aircraft program is always subject to change but each item is well sourced and seems to catalogue the design announcements in a neutral and well-attributed manner. The editor tagging this will have to provide more details about his/her concerns so that they can be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tag - given that the dates being mentioned are in the past now, I'm not sure how "crystal balling" applies. What this article does badly need though is a major dose of the hedge trimmers and a significant update. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that, as you can tell I couldn't see how the tag made sense. Like many articles about development projects it is hard in advance of production to tell which information is important and which is not, so it all gets added to be trimmed once the test flying phase is history. I have been looking for updates, but the company was in financial straits prior to the Chinese govt buying it early in 2011 and that seems to have put the project on the backburner. I am anticipating we will hear more soon. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If I read this right, then most, if not all, of these statements are referring to the not-yet-existing production model: The aircraft or particular components thereof "will be comparable to...", "will be equipped with...", "will be made of...", "will be powered by...", "will seat seven people", "there will be a seat that can slide...", "the parachute will be located...", "The door will be replaced...", "The production aircraft will also have a more pointed nose, larger belly section, redesigned wing-root fairing, reduced tail sweep and a larger or even dual ventral fin", "it will carry 400 pounds of people and cargo", its "target range will be 1,100 nmi", "... pilot training requirements will be specified in the type certificate", "the aircraft will incorporate some design changes", "the maximum price for purchasers who have already paid a deposit will be US$1.39M", "the aircraft will be certified for FL280", "It will have a hybrid ice protection system", "cabin pressurization will be contained within a single-piece carbon shell", "the aircraft will have an optional lavatory"', etc, etc, etc.... If we take WP:CRYSTAL serious, most of theses statements are clearly invalid. It sure is nice to personally anticipate an aircraft as innovative as this one, but that does not make it appropriate to anticipate things in an article -- Theoprakt (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually nothing on this aircraft is very innovative at all - it is all old or at least existing technology and the performance will be quite low for a jet. The company claims it will be the "slowest, lowest, and cheapest jet available." In this article these statements are not wild guesses by Wikipedia editors or people not connected with the project, but are the manufacturer's design goals and are all referenced to reliable sources. The tag wording "This article may contain unsourced predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur. Please help improve it by removing unsourced speculative content." is not applicable in this case as none of the information is unsourced or speculative. In this age aircraft design is a fairly exact science and if a manufacturer says there aircraft design will fly X speed for X distance then the aircraft will likely meet those goals. Prototypes are flying, so this is not some paper project. As it is the article is pretty clear in its referencing that these are manufacturer specified numbers. - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are more than guesses, but to my understanding, currently there is no working rescue system, there is no certification, there is no seating for seven passengers, and so on. Yet the article claims these things will be in existence, yet the development of the parachute could fail, the manufacturer could go bust, or the world could end according to the Maya calendar. -- Theoprakt (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are very few single-engine personal jets, I do not know of any type produced in series. There definitely are no jets at all with a rescue system. So "innovative", while it is something of a weasel, can be applied here. The projected performance is at par with other very light jets. And when the manufacturer refers to his product as "the slowest", I am perfectly willing to read this as a reference to landing rather than to cruise speed. -- Theoprakt (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments really amount to "because this aircraft is not in production yet, all manufacturer design goals and plans are speculative and should not be included". By that line of thinking you seem to be arguing that this article should not exist, so you really should take it to WP:AFD for a proper deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From that we have arrived at the snappy remarks know, I conclude that this discussion is finished. --Theoprakt (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We should always assume clue on the part of our readers. "This is an aircraft in development, this is the expected performance, individual results may vary" is fairly obvious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Specification parameters

I recently cleaned up the specifications and removed some parameters that are not part of the template and are not normally included. These include max zero fuel weight, cabin width, cabin height, multiple different ranges with different fuel and payloads, take off and landing distances and many details on fuel consumption. Another editor put them back in indicating that they are referenced, which they are. The fact that they are referenced is not the point, though. If you go through Jane's you can find hundreds more spec details that are referenced, like aileron area, tire diameter and rudder deflections. The point is that Wikipedia is not Jane's, it is a general encyclopedia and we set the spec template parameters to exclude this sort of detail after much thoughtful debate, because that level of detail does not belong in a general encyclopedia. It also means that there is a loss of standardization between aircraft type articles, which makes it harder to readers to compare details. I proposed that this extra detail be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

you can point it to me :) The point is Jane's isn't easily accessible (and the aircraft manual isn't either), so when you have a good ref on an interesting feature, wikipedia is great to gather good info. In the template (which one of the 3 or 4?) there is a fuel consumption item, but it could only accept mass/distance units, without details on scenario, so I had to find a way around. MZFW is useful to calculate max PL and fuel avail at max PL. Cabin dimensions are useful to compare with its competition, as TO/land distances and ranges at different PL. If the manufacturer places it in its commercial brochure (not a tech doc), there is a reason. If you prefer, we could place it in an other section instead of removing the data? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Ahunt these extras should be removed per previous consensus on what is included and the points made by Ahunt above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

With no further discussion in the past week I think we have a consensus to remove these now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @MilborneOne: you deleted the data moved from specs as proposed and not challenged 6 days ago with " far to much detail, mostly not notable" in the edit summary. Since I proposed that without opposition, I find it a bit harsh. I agree the result isn't pleasant to read -that's why I find it more useful in the specs- but nonetheless Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, and a proposition for a better form would be welcome.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Other than the size of the cabin the rest is just not the stuff we normally include, hence not notable enough to include (which is not related to notability of a subject to get an article. As you have been told a number of times what we include has been subject to consensus and discussion over the years and I am pleased you have made some good contributions but I think you just need to understand the content has evolved over many tears by agreement. Yes you are welcome to challenge the status quo but that is probably better done at project level. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would happily be pointed towards these previous discussions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Doors

Trying to add a basic description of the aircraft, does anybody have a reliable source for the door(s), they appear to be Gull-wing doors one on each side ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

clamshell, left only--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks like it would be fun getting in and out of the back row with six passengers onboard. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Design and development structure

Given the long development process (and perhaps the high expectations), this section is unusually long. Already in 2013 @Ahunt: sectioned by year. Yesterday I added semantic titles (Initial Design - Flight Testing - CAIGA ownership [could have been Certification campaign]), more meaningful than simple chronological titles. This was changed again by @Joey1niner: finding them too vague and unnecessary, and grouped years in decades. As decades sections are too long, I reverted to established years subsections. We should seek a consensus for this structure per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here! I think, as you quite rightly point out, given the very long development period involved, that the existing article organization, with the changes you recently made, is probably as good as we will get. - Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do you mean my revert to year-only titles or the previous addition of semantic titles?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean that the current organization as you have it now is pretty much optimal, as-is. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange deletion

I had added the following in the lead:

With an initial price tag of under $2 million, the Vision SF50 is substantially less expensive than competing light jets which generally cost at least 4 to 5 times as much for the cheapest models.

Ahunt removed this with the comment

removed, too promotional and the refs you cited doesn't even mention the SF50

First, the comment of the refs is false. I in fact re-used an existing ref that specifically gave the price tag. I'm hoping this was a mistake and not an attempt at deception

Beyond that, the "promotional" aspect, though a good thing to consider, I do not believe holds merit. Ultimately every article about a product should highlight what makes that product interesting and unique (i.e. why is it worth learning about this topic?). Certainly statements like "This is the best of its kind on the market" are unacceptable. But statement citable facts about a product that explain its significance are worthwhile (e.g. "The Ferrari XYZ was the fastest car on the market at the time.", "The IBM XYZ was the first computer to introduce an ABC interface.", etc.). Whether or not those facts might in fact sway some reader to consider the purchasing the product is beside the point (as long as the facts are not overwhelmingly skewed to create bias).

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The source you added, does not mention the SF50. The article does discuss the cost of other jets and that appears to be what you were using it for. The problem is that you are comparing the cost of a single engine jet that has a maximum of 7 passengers and crew to a dual engine plane, Embraer Phenom 300, that carries 11 passengers and crew. Not a very fair comparison of cost. Of course a larger plane costs more. When you do a comparison, you need to compare things that are similar. You shouldn't compare a one plane to another one that has 1.5x the capacity. ~ GB fan

I looked further into what you were comparing. You compared a plane that has a max speed of 300 knots, max range of 600 nMi and ceiling of 28,000 ft to a plane with a max speed of 450 knots, max range of 1971 nMi and a ceiling of 45,000 ft. Do you really think that comparing the cost of these two aircraft to be fair? About the only thing that is the same between these two aircraft is that they are jet powered. ~ GB fan 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If we want a comparison the aircraft in the table here gives a better group of aircraft to compare. The cost difference when you start comparing Very light jets to each other is not as dramatic as when you compare then to light jets. ~ GB fan 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, and as User:GB fan mentioned above, the ref you cited doesn't mention the SF50 at all. Making your own comparisons based on the data there and coming to your own conclusions is WP:OR. Then there is the whole issue that we try to avoid things like cost comparisons at all on Wikipedia. WP:NOPRICES has some views on this as does WP:NOTGUIDE. The way you worded made it sound like the sort of language used in a sales pitch. We certainly avoid that sort of wording in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

article cleanup

I spent a few hours cleaning the article, split in multiple edits with meaningful summaries: mostly brevity and references check. No material or references were removed. It was reverted by @Joey1niner: stating Start using the talk page and interacting with other editors before making such drastic changes; it was a better, more substantive and encyclopedic article prior to these edits I disagree these were "drastic" changes as no material or references were removed. Maybe individual edits could be contested with a reason, but I don't think it's any less encyclopedic, easier to scan I hope, but nothing was lost. Improving an article is a difficult task but reverting is simple.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree that User:Marc Lacoste post-tidy up is better and conforms more to the usual layout and content for these article, certainly splitting it up by years was non-standard. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

---

After one week and no objections here, yesterday I went back to the cleaned-up revision, with "restored rev 877574668 of 9 January as it is confirmed in talk + changes since: deliveries, G2" as edit summary. It was again reverted with some tweaks by @WindRider26: stating "Added back and adjusted a significant amount of information detracted from the body, improved lead and reorganized content accordingly" but it was not "adjusted" but mostly a reversion with some tweaks. I understand the article seems to have been transformed by my edits, but it's the same, only verified and copy-edited. Anybody have the details in the article history. Don't sneakily revert, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Type certificate requirements

@Ahunt: Thanks for your recent work! When after "pilot training would be required in the aircraft type certificate" you add "this was not written into the final type certificate", or after " The SF50 is designed for a life limit of 12,000 flight hours" you add "this is not a type certification limit"; you take the type certificate data sheet as the reference, but the TCDS is a summary and more requirements may be present in the rest of the certification : pilot handbook, training or maintenance references... (Also, I separated the statements supported by different references for an easier WP:Verifiability). Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It is true that the TC may "incorporate by reference" other documents, but if they are not written into the TC itself they are not limits. The TC for the SF50 does not mention training at all, unlike the TC for the E-500, which does on its very last line. This is notable for the SF50, because the company claimed it would be included in the TCDS, but it wasn't. My understanding from the FAA was that they would not include training the the TC again after the E-500, due to the problems it created after the manufacturer went out of business. Likewise the airframe life is specified in some TCs, but not this one, so it is not a limit. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixing invalid parameter and invalid reference

I made (and then replaced, after it was reverted) a fix to the referencing in this article. The problem is that a reference named "AIN2dec2015" is defined in the infobox in the setting for the never exceed speed Mach parameter. This isn't a vlaid parameter for the infobox, so the reference definition doesn't make it into the article.

With the definition never made, subsequent uses of the article cause error messages in the article's "references" section that say "Cite error: The named reference AIN2dec2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."

We can confirm this diagnosis by observing the article: the 0.53 number never appears in the info box, and there's no mention of the never-exceed speed there either.

Further, the article gives 0.53 mach as the Vmo speed, not the Vme speed. Maybe they're the same, but wikipedia itself gives different definitions with no note that they're the same, or even similar or related.

The fix I made moves the reference definition where it satisfies subsequent invocation, and removes the undefined parameter from the template invocation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I juste added a line in "more performance" then. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed accident

This accident was recently removed:

==Accidents and incidents==
On August 24, 2021 an SF50 crashed on take-off from [[Capital Region International Airport]] in [[Lansing, Michigan]]. The pilot and three passengers were uninjured, but the aircraft was destroyed in the post impact fire. The US [[National Transportation Safety Board]] reported that the aircraft suffered "a loss of left rudder effectiveness and left brake authority during the takeoff roll". The pilot rejected the take-off, but was unable to stop on the remaining runway and the aircraft collided with the airport perimeter fence.<ref name="Niles05Se21">{{cite web|url= https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/control-issues-preceded-cirrus-vision-jet-crash-ntsb/|title= Control Issues Preceded Cirrus Vision Jet Crash: NTSB|access-date= 6 September 2021|last= Niles|first= Russ|work= AVweb|date= 5 September 2021|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210905081945/https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/control-issues-preceded-cirrus-vision-jet-crash-ntsb/|archive-date= 5 September 2021|url-status= live}}</ref><ref name="NTSB24Aug21">{{cite web|url= https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103750/pdf|title= Aviation Accident Preliminary Report|access-date= 6 September 2021|author= Sorensen, Timothy|work= ntsb.gov|date= 24 August 2021|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210906145143/https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103750/pdf|archive-date= 6 September 2021|url-status= live}}</ref>

I don't disagree with removing it, as it doesn't make WP:AIRCRASH at the present time. The reason I included it is that it looks like there is a good potential for an airworthiness directive there. I suggest we just hold it here, then, and see what the NTSB comes up with and whether the FAA puts out an AD or the manufacturer takes any action in terms of a service bulletin or modifications. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

After looking into this a little more, I actually think weather and runway conditions could end up playing a far greater roll -- as per AvWeb's first account of the accident here: and the ATC audio recording here: . Thanks for bringing this to Talk instead though. We'll just have to wait and see what the full investigation/report unveils. Joey1niner (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll just park it here and see. It will be quickly available if it does result in an AD or similar and can easily be put back in then. I keep an eye on AVweb each week so I will probably see a report posted when a cause is determined. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Add an "Accidents and Incidents" section

Many aircraft types listed on Wikipedia have an "Accidents and Incidents" section so that interested readers can study these. The SF50 is a very new type and so the list of accidents and incidents is short, but it seems like this may be a useful section to add. Any thoughts? KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see right above. We only add sections for Accidents and incidents when there is any content for the section. There has only been one serious accident so far and it is non-notable, as per WP:AIRCRASH and the discussion above. As noted there, if it does turn out to be notable in the longer run (ie any lasting effects, such as an Airworthiness Directive), then the section will be reinstated. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Very good! Hopefully this will be a section that does not need to be added for a long time! Thanks for clarifying! KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

G2/G2+ pictures

• 
  G2
• 
  G2+

@Joey1niner: are there any external differences in the G2/G2+ compared to the previous variant besides an updated logo?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)