Jump to content

Talk:Extra EA-300

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RfC: Operators section: additions?

[edit]

Many demonstration pilots are flying the 300 or its derivatives around the world. Who else should be listed here? - Jim Ward (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable teams (such as ones with their own articles) probably warrant going in the article, and possibly individuals notable for there perfomances in the Extra - such as winners in World Aerobatic Championships.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Individuals having their own Wikipedia articles should be included, too. However, I'd probably avoid listing every Extra driver with an ACE card (low altitude waiver) who flies a handful of demonstrations each year unless they're notable in their own right. Jim Ward (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Coleman accident reference: remove?

[edit]

The reference to the Coleman accident seems tangential to, thus out of place in, this article. I'm inclined to remove it, leaving only the information about the Coleman 300L serving as chase for SS1 and GF. Comments? - Jim Ward (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Does the inclusion of Patty's Extra 300S in flight simulator software rise to a level to warrant mention in the Popular culture section? I'm on the fence and being so, will leave it in unless there's a consensus to the contrary.

If it stays: for greater accuracy, the statement that her aircraft appears in 5 flight simulators should change to just list RealFlight and Microsoft Flight Simulator. The vendor's upgrade and pricing policies notwithstanding, it's really just depicted in one Microsoft product that's been revised over the years. Comments? - Jim Ward (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Keep CIVA reference?

[edit]

There's a CIVA (FAI) reference at the bottom of the page that seems gratuitous. Can anyone explain why it should be there? - Jim Ward (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft specifications in Metric system

[edit]

I recently edited the specifications for this aircraft to specify the primary measurement of speed in Knots and the primary measurement of elevation in feet. (For deliberate reasons, the weights and dimensions of the aircraft were left in Metric units.) Another editor reverted my edit under the justification that "Furopean Aicraft - therefore Metric first".

I would certainly understand this if we were talking about a European car. In fact, all modern cars worldwide use km/h, including those in the United States. It is the roadsigns in the USA that are not Metric.

Aircraft are different. For historical and pragmatic reasons, aircraft never use Metric measurements for airspeed or altitude, even in Europe. I believe that this should change in the future, but such a change has not occured, primarily due to safety concerns such a changeover would cause. (As a side note, the "Gimli Glider" incident occured for a partial change to Metric.) If two aircraft believed that "3000" meant 3000m or 3000ft independently, a disaster could occur. In addition, the cost of changing all the instruments on the global aircraft fleet and other infrastructure, as well as personnel retraining, would be staggering. The last thing I'd like to point out on this is that the linked spec sheet from the manufacturer does not use metric at all in the specifications of airspeed.

For this reason, I am going to revert this change once (and only once) more. I will not persist if, after reading this reasoning, it is still believed that European aircraft are primarily metric and the change is reverted by this editor again. 173.58.198.209 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel is correct, as this is the general practice for aircraft articles. Although there is some disagreement, we generally also include both statute-mile and nautical-mile units. - BillCJ (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MX2/MX aircraft.

[edit]

The MX2 is very similar in apperance and purpose as the EA-300. You can see the two aircraft photographed together here: [1]. I have added the MX2 to the comparable aircraft list. More details on the MX2 on it's website: [2]. Incubus421 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

[edit]

The article listed 'past variants' and 'actual variants' - what is this supposed to indicate? 'Past' and 'present' would make sense, or 'proposed' and 'actual' possibly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response, I've removed the subheadings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extra EA-300. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speed error?

[edit]

How is the maneuvering speed double the never exceed speed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9000:E63:F90A:909B:F39F:635B (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I have fixed it. Appeared to be an error introduced by User:Petebutt. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged. But you didn't spot why it got introduced!! I have fixed that now.--Petebutt (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to spot errors in the sea of added numbers, it now reads like the flight manual which WP:NOTMANUAL was devised to counter against. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Airclub Fleet

[edit]

How can one organization's fleet figures be more accurately mentioned than by the organization itself? If a third party would publish such information it would undoubtedly be the official figure and not a self-carried investigation on the matter. I think that in this case the self-published policy does not apply. Under this policy interpretation, relevant Wikipedia content could not be included anymore. BilCat, please answer and explain recent changes. BaboneCar (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, as small flying clubs operating various light aircraft are not notable, there are hundreds of clubs like this worldwide. Putting links to the club's Facebook page all over Wikipedia looks like WP:SPAM, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misinformed and looks like you've not made any research on the matter before stating that. That is a large organization with many branches throughout the entire country and also the largest of its kind there. They fly a large number of aircraft and, even if they didn't, what matters most is that they do fly this Extra aircraft and get notable coverage in the media and at almost all aviation events throughout the country.
WP:SPAM is an empty claim for the reason that I've stated above and in the edit summary: that was an official page post and that is their channel of communication! It's just like adding an official website reference! It's up to you if you consider that that website is not relevant, but many others do think it is. And again, we're talking about an official channel of a large organization, not a personal blog.
Supporting references:
After all, the channel, whether it is website or newspaper, is not even important. What's important is that the information is officially published, that it was made available to the public.
I am sorry, but I am not following your replies anymore as you are losing credibility stating incorrect facts. Do request for other opinions, if you still believe in what you are claiming. BaboneCar (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extra_EA-300&oldid=1207162318"