Jump to content

Talk:Sukhoi Superjet 100/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Orders and Options Table

Someone needs to edit this section - Gadair went bankrupt over a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.140.211 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pearl Aircraft Corporation is not US-based company. Their corporate site http://www.pearlaircraft.com/corporate-profile/ states that "Pearl Aircraft Corporation, Ltd is a Bermuda-based commercial aircraft leasing company ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.211.133.57 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to other manufacturers

In the "Design" section, the aircraft is said to be "designed to compete against the Embraer E-Jets and the Bombardier CSeries programs." Should this actually read Bombardier CRJ Series? The CRJ and CSeries are different programs. The CRJ is 50-90 passengers, whereas the CSeries is an earlier stage of development than the Sukhoi here, and will be 110-130 passengers.

Cite: "A longer "SSJ 100-110" and "SSJ 100-125" is also projected.": "The Superjet-100 (SSJ-100, formerly known as RRJ [5]) is designed to compete against the Embraer E-Jets and the Bombardier CSeries programs." is right. For more informations and verification: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211873/russian-revolution-the-sukhoi-superjet.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.203.185 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Design subsection reads like an advertisement for this aircraft. 98.227.114.222 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It does. Or like Russian propaganda. Mikus (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite neutral - there are pros and cons. What statements are unsatisfied you, folks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.122.212 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The folks are unsatisfied with Russia's progress in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.46.74 (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Main thing is that section starts from comparison claims that are indeed more like advertisement than actual coverage of design process. If you moved to the bottom of the same paragraph or moved it out to "Reception" or "Criticism", then it would make more sense. 98.210.248.73 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The section looks neutral enough to me. What is the problem? Could you provide an example of what you mean? Offliner (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Noise and emissions levels of SSJ100 meet the strictest ecological demands and surpass the highest existing and future ICAO requirements" - This maybe correct, but a sentence like this is hardly wikipedia-worthy. How about sources and numbers? And all those superlatives (strictest, highest) just make it sound like an advertisement.

"Fuel efficiency is secured by the third generation supercritical airfoil wing and excellent local aerodynamics. All this combined with perfectly balanced aircraft control laws in autopilot mode add to fuel consumption savings. Weight perfection and the SaM146 engine, tailored for this aircraft family, reduce fuel consumption per seat by 10% compared to its rivals." - Words like "excellent" and "perfectly" are anything but neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.142.178 (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If the wording ("excellent", "perfectly") comes from a very reliable neutral source (such as a third-party aviation industry publication), then there wouldn't be too much problem in using it. But it's hard to know where exactly it comes from as that part lacks inline citation. Offliner (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"excellent" and "perfect" are subjective. There is no such thing as a objectively perfect or scientifically excellent plane. And subjectivity is not allowed in an encyclopedia. But you are right, that it is allowed to quote, but then citation is absolutely mandatory. And then you would maintain neutrality by writing s.th. like this: "According to XYZ-Magazine ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.142.178 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that those aren't neutral words. Most of them sound like they come from a brochure or press release. There is useful information in there, like that the wing uses a 3rd gen supercritical airfoil, but it needs to be edited a bit. -SidewinderX (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Orders and Deliveries

Total firm orders do not match official source: "Currently, the solid order portfolio for the new regional jet reaches 122 aircraft." http://superjet100.com/mediacenter/press/00198/ 79.222.31.120 (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

March 31 - April 1, 2014 Potential fraudulent articles/ internet rumor about unannounced/unsubstantiated Chinese purchases of 100 SuperJets. I removed the following references to a NON-EXISTENT Chinese customer by the name of Henan-Oberoi ordering 100 sukhoi SuperJets on March 25th, 2014:

  • 25 March 2014 - China's Oberoi Aircraft signs the contract for the delivery of 100 Sukhoi Superjet 100s. [1][2]

The articles state that the order contract is for exactly $3.54 Billion (that's right take the unit price $35.4 Million and multiple by 100); an obvious idiotic and simplistic lie given that no aircraft contract is simply the unit cost of the airplane times the number of units purchased. If this contract was real (which Sukhoi confirms it is not, since it is only an MoU) it would include costs for sparing, maintenance, service, training, marketing, financing, overhead, regulatory, legal-services and potentially some technology transfer etc.

The actual fact is that only an MoU has been signed regarding intentions to do business; i.e. no confirmed orders of any sort can concluded from an MoU. According to the Financial Times (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/03/26/russias-sukhoi-eyes-big-jet-deal-with-chinese-company/#axzz2xbbxJpmL):

  • “So far we only have a memo of understanding (with O’Bay),” Marina Motornaya, spokeswoman for Sukhoi Civil Aviation, said on Tuesday. “We’re considering any options.” In China, MOUs are treated as a warm up to substantive negotiations on deal terms, meaning that many MOUs fail to be implemented.


This is further underscored by the fact no reference to such an order can be found on the official Sukhoi SuperJet website (with the latest press release dated at March 18 and 26, 2014 only making references to InterJet, a Mexican carrier). The references provided in this wikipedia article are sourced from claimed affirmations of a signed deal with a Chinese customer by a Chinese oriented tabloid source of dubious reputation ("wantchinatimes.com") and another chinese source (chinadaily.com.cn) with neither Chinese source agreeing on the correct name of the alleged customer: according to "wantchinatimes.com the customer's name is Henan-Oberoi Aircraft (Oberoi is a large Indian company with no aviation interests in China) or according to ChinaDaily.cn the name of the alleged customer is "Henan O-Bay Aircraft". Given the unreliable, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated nature of claims made in these 2 articles and their contradictions, the absence of an official press-release from Sukhoi SuperJet and the fact that an FT.times blog only mentions a potential MoU (Memorandum of Understanding), this cannot be taken to mean a confirmed order of 100 jets. Consequently, the text and reference corresponding to them have been removed from this Wikipedia article.

I have also removed the references to this internet exaggeration of a Chinese purchase of 100 SuperJets from the Orders Table and corrected the order count back to 284 jets (which even at 284 orders is a tremendous success for Sukhoi, enabling it recoup all development costs and obtain on-going profits as well). The removed table entry is as follows:

25 March 2014 China Oberoi Aircraft 2016-2018 100 [1]

Only if and when a confirmed order is announced from official Sukhoi SuperJet joint venture (Sukhoi International or Sukhoi Civil Aviation) can this order be added to order count tally. 74.59.157.98 (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Henan aviation firm orders 100 planes from Russia's Sukhoi Want China Times Daily, Taiwan, 2014-03-25
  2. ^ Wang Wen (China Daily)O-Bay to purchase 100 regional Russian aircraft The China Daily, 25 March 2014

Shamefully censored article

This is not a Sukhoi plane, this is an FSB plane. It is a copycat of the stolen Dornier-Fairchild 728 design, the induced bankruptcy of that company was a big success of the russian secret service! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And your sources are directly from Russian Secret Service? :) 98.210.248.73 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

interestingly to see someone still living in the cold war. I believe this plane would have great future and lifts the Russian aircraft industry to a new level, because this plane was developed with reasonable market and technological analysis carried out by specialists, not by the politicians. Canadian and Brazilian can make medium sized air craft, but their technology and production capacity can hardly compete with the Russian, what Russians lack is the ability to market their products out and provide after-sale service, this is the reason they cooperate with the Italians. Of course Boeing and Air bus will continue to rule the big plane market for couple of years, its harder to make bigger aircraft and Russians will need more times on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.250.153 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking back and forth at the two articles, it looks like this plane is substantially shorter than the Fairchild Dornier 728 family 728, has a wider wingspan, seats more passengers, has 25,000 vs. 20,000 empty weight. As an ignoramus on the topic, I don't understand what can be so different anyway - seems like most jet airplanes look a lot alike. Please explain what aspects of the design were important to copy, and/or provide sources about the copying, or if there's a previous version of this article that was censored then link to it and show us the diff where it was censored. I've seen Wikipedia articles censored all too often, and I wouldn't be that surprised, but don't expect people to go running off to make your case for you. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The only "striking" similarity between them, apart from occupying the same airliner class, is a similar design/layout of the windshields up front, basically. Fuselage design, aerofoils, dimensions, performance figures etc. are different (well, still pretty close to each other due to the aforementioned sharing of class and the almost global consensus on fundamental airliner design). Nor is there any indication of industrial spionage or anything like that. It just sounds like the Fairchild Dornier people/fanboys/whatever are mad because their product didn't succeed due to economical problems and lack of investors and clients, whereas Sukhoi are being very successful right now with a product targeted at the same market. However, the cockpit of the Superjet 100 borrows heavily from Airbus cockpits (side sticks etc), but you can hardly claim that it's bad to borrow from a successful design. Russia has very competent aeronautical engineers etc, but people just want to ignore that fact and keep pointing fingers at Tupolev Tu-4 and Tu-144 (which on the other hand has a lesser copycat factor than what is widely presumed). These discussions show up everywhere and it's absolutely retarded. In some instances, it has gotten to the point where it's more or less akin to accusing car manufacturers of plagiarism because they all have similarly spaced headlights, similarly sized steering wheels and uses similarly designed brake systems. Each new thing builds upon gained experience, is confined to physical limits (esp. in terms of available technology) and in most cases has to follow regulations and what not. Also, another obvious factor is, as the popular saying goes, "why reinvent the wheel?". It's perfectly logical that different products reaching for a common goal will share common traits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.168.130 (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

What's the point of removing all citation templates and converting them to bare refs? I very much prefer citation templates. Offliner (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly not how the article started and with the many errors in the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome, it is much easier to have complete information given in a readable and accurate way. It was more effective to simply rewrite the citations than to try to wrangle the information in properly. Not all the citations were affected but certainly every one of the templates was written out incorrectly. In a few words, the referencing issues are:
  1. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
  2. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (certainly not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
  3. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
  4. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
  5. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
  6. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.
BTW, that's the least of the problems that the article faces, it has a scrambling of English and Russian text references, a mix of verb tenses, two or three different date conventions and inordinate paragraph, section and sentence formations. The article needs a very direct rewriting and the establishment of a consistent style that others can follow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Fuel Capacity

Conversion from litres to pounds doesn't seem right. I'm pretty sure 13,000 litres weighs more than 28 pounds. AMCKen (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed using conversion (averaged because density was listed as 0.775-0.840 kg/L) found at Jet fuel Metre01 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The article in the "Specifications" section gives the same maximum fuel capacity for all four variants. This cannot be correct as there are two aircraft sizes in regular and long range variants. Q43 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Redundant Entrant?

Numerous similar aircraft are in competition. There should be a section discussing the redundancy of splintering the market and on the considerations in producing yet another new type when Russia's allies face the same devilishly formidable competitors as Russia, especially within the borders of the United States. Could Airbus, Antonov, Bombardier, Fokker, Tupelov, Comac, Embraer, and Mitsubishi have combined talents to create a Superduperuperjet? For example on some Airbus planes, the seatbelts don't work. Perhaps they have a shortage of engineering talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.17.194 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Airbus dont make seatbelts, the interior fit including seats is mostly down to individual airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sources have said there is going to be a very large demand for regional aircraft in the future (Google for "regional aircraft demand"), so there should be plenty of market for everyone. Perhaps some of the forecast numbers could be included in this article. Nanobear (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source for specific SJ100 figures then they may be notable, like how many they expect to sell. Discussion of competitors may be best left to the overview article on Regional aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta Airlines?

Delta Airlines may have had placed an order. Can anyone confirm this.--Trulystand700 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC) http://en.rian.ru/business/20110623/164789608.html

[quote] This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. [/qu ote]
  • No they didn't. Read the source you mentioned and you will see that they merely just expressed interest and sent them a proposal to buy some. Nothing set in stone here; anyway, I would highly doubt that an American airline would buy Russian aircraft. —Compdude123 03:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not tag the www.sukhoi.superjet100.com/mediacenter/ links as dead, unless they're down for a long time. They seem to be sometimes down for a while, before starting to work again. After I noticed the latest tagging, I checked the links, and they indeed did not work. Then I navigated to the same pages via "press center" -> "press releases", and now the links seem to work fine again. Strange, I know. Nanobear (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag removal

Sorry thats incorrect. See A380 A350 B787 Comac ARJ21 Comac 919 MS-21 or most other aircraft. Discuss, not on this talk page, but on the Aircraft portal. The flags add important info in a compressed form. Otherwise include the country. Tagremover (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used. Tagremover (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no point in using the flag in the first place. The company does not "represent" the country, as I cited on your talk page (a post you seem to have removed). Drmies (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel inclined to agree the flag is little relevant, as flags are symbols for a country or a nation but there is no 1<->1 link between an aircraft and a country. More importantly, allow me to insist revert wars are useless, as useless as the repetition of arguments. If you really can't sort it out, the next step seems a request for arbitration. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you about revert wars, but when someone is editing against policy and consensus, I don't see why arbitration is necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Flags are utterly and entirely stupid. Most people, like me HATE flags and think they add junk to the article. I am a real stickler with MOS:FLAGS and I really don't think airlines "represent" a country. An example where something would represent a country is with a list of Olympic gold medalists in a particular event. The people there definitely are representing their country at the Olympics. But an airline? Absolutely positively no you can't do flags. —Compdude123 03:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the harsh comment, but I really don't see why we need flags here and as you can tell I have really strong opinions against their inclusion. I know that MOS:FLAGS is a guideline and not a rule; the only hard and fast rules here are the five pillars. But if this article ever wants to join the featured article club it must comply with the MOS which discourages flags in this case. —Compdude123 03:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • @Bushranger: 99.9%: Your POV fantasy, or do you have a citation?
@Compdude123: If you get it, to remove all flags in all aircraft article orders, even those in "the featured article club" or whatever, you can remove them here. Otherwise they stay. Period. Tagremover (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Tagremover, it is clear yet again that you don't care much for "consensus". "Period"--come on now. And no, Compdude is under no obligation to remove anything from anything, though I did take your hint to help Airbus A380 get to FA status sooner. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Start a vote. Drmies , it is clear yet again that you don't care much for "consensus" with your reverts. I don´t want to discuss here, since it concerns all aircrafts. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Tagremover (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I saw that. Also not going well for you. I do care for consensus: my edits are in agreement with everyone who's commented above. Besides, if they weren't, they would have been reverted: you're the only one who has reverted my removal of those flags. No vote--this is not a democracy. Now, your disrespectful comment toward Bushranger: you've been here for three weeks, for a thousand edits, and you think you can gauge what the community thinks (without apparently ever actually reading the policy)? Bushranger and I have a couple of years on you, and sometimes experience helps. I'll tell you something else from experience: you're building a community of one. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Vote on flag removal

Update: The poll is now closed. It appears that the majority of those who responded do NOT want to keep the flags. Perhaps I should have phrased the summary better: the important thing for me was to keep the country data regardless of how it was presented: country flag or country name or even country code. Anyhow, thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. C1010 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it appears that a group of editors decided to push with the idea of removing country flags from aircraft pages despite the fact that not everyone finds this idea beneficial and there is a good argument why country flags should not be removed. Having country flags (that is, NOT removing them) is a good idea as it allows the reader to easily judge aircraft's market, whether it's domestic or international, and if it's international what countries are involved. Removing country flags may needlessly force the reader to work harder to get this information, potentially wasting reader's time and making the reader to click and read through many pages. Here's how one of the affected pages looked with flags in place and with flags removed. With reference to the above, please consider sharing your opinion on whether the country flags should be kept or removed. C1010 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider MOS:FLAGS. While it is not a hard-and-fast policy, it is important that wikipedia complies with the Manual of Style. —Compdude123 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have not seen anything in MOS:FLAGS that requires removal of the flags. What clause, specifically, are you referring to? C1010 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Flags are inapproprate and irrelevant in other contexts - which is what this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation, airline's national identity is clearly pertinent to the list of orders (as airlines of some countries are restricted from ordering certain aircrafts), so country flags are quite relevant and appropriate. C1010 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
By that standard, every biography should have a flag representing the person's nationality in the infobox - something that was depreciated long ago. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Should this RFC really be at WP:AIRCRAFT project level as not many watch this page and if a consensus is gained it might be difficult to use it outside of this article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd flag it up at Aircraft, and Airline with suitable explanation of the nature of the RFC and how it affects the project. But stuff is already happening here so little point in moving venue. When this Rfc is closed report the outcome to those two project areas and see what the reaction is. Worst case at the end of this Rfc, start an Rfc at the project talkpage something along the lines of "the RFC on .... found that national flag icons should/shouldn't (delete as applicable) be used in list of Sukhoi Superjet 100 sales. Should this be applied across the project (and noted in the project style guideline) or handled on a case by case basis?" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree about staying put, but if it concludes that flags should be removed it then needs to be mentioned at the projects. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Should someone post a suitably neutrally worded note at WP:MOS or one of the appropriate subpages? After all there is little point in reaching a local consensus if it just gets overwritten at a higher level.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the use of flags in this manner widespread among aircraft articles? There's consensus that flags should not be used and the fact they still appear is a problem of the articles not following policy.Curb Chain (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The current consensus is that flags are used in the operators section only so a large proportion of the 9600 aircraft and rotorcraft articles and about 500 lists all have flags. It might need a bot to check or change that many articles if the consensus is to change. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Timeline I propose that the voting (RFC) should cause no actions until end March 25th, as there is no need to hurry. If somebody wants, a 2nd RFC might take place, but i informed some pages that this is relevant. Tagremover (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, keep the flags

  1. Yes, keep the flags, as removing them may needlessly force the reader to work harder to get this information, potentially wasting reader's time and effors. C1010 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There no issue about how useful this information iscan be. Rather the issue here is that it is misleading.Curb Chain (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - It IS interesting to some, where the orders come from. For example: Airbus is dominating in sales in the EU, it has quite good sales in its narrowbodies, but low sales in its widebodies to US, and nearly no sales to Japan. Access the pages now and get quickly this info. (Bold is sometimes needed) Tagremover (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia fails to deliver that info. Tagremover (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment That type of information might be relevant in an Airbus vs Boeing article, or more generally an article on the world market for large aircraft. Not in an article about one specific type of aircraft. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Your preference for bold concurs with that for the flag icons: you seem to think we are writing "easy reading stuff". While we do not want to be complicated for the sake of being complicated or looking clever, we do want to create an encyclopedia, summing up essential verified information. Eye candy is for the tabloids. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Quickly viewing the important stuff. Flags and bold deliver that. Tagremover (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Non-important stuff doesn't belong here anyway. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It is verging on original research to decide that the nationality of airlines is "important stuff", unless a quorum of reliable sources has stated this. What flag would you put beside Air France? --John (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The flag gives the airline's country information which is important: I agree with C1010 and Tagremover. If the airline "changes nationality" (which is not really common) the flag will be replaced by the new one... --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, remove the flags (please explain why)

  • Remove the flags; firstly because they are crufty. Secondly, and most importantly, countries do not order the aircraft, but operators/airlines do. What country they are from is immaterial to the list. If, for example, Scandinavian Airlines ordered the aircraft, do we include the flags of Sweden, Norway and Denmark? And what if an airline changes it's country of domicile? Which can and does happen in the business (Orient Thai Airlines was originally a Cambodian airline, for example). The wikilinked airline name is enough, if editors are truly interested in what country the airline is from. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Scandinavian Airlines is a rare case and can be handled in a number of ways: 1) three flags (I see no tragedy in that), 2) flag of the airline's headoffice country, 3) no flag. I can't see Scandinavian Airlines as the reason to drop country flags entirely. C1010 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove the flags, but keep country name. I agree with Russavia, and I should also add that some airlines may be owned by companies from different countries. Flags aren't always widely recognized internationally, so I think that flags should be replaced with the name of the country where the airline is headquartered in. —Compdude123 20:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove to comply with WP:MOSFLAG and standard practice throughout Wikipedia. If the entity the flag is 'attached' to in the article represents its country (a sporting competitor, a military unit, and such), then a flag is OK. An airline does not represent a country. The inclusion of the flags clutters the article and makes it hard to follow (and, for those who cannot see images in their articles, they are useless). - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove the flags, inline with the manual of style, which is pretty clear on this point. I think they're inappropriate. If anybody thinks the style guide is wrong, feel free to propose changing it (or proposing an exception for aircraft articles or whatever) on the MOS page; but bear in mind that there may be more people there who disagree with you - if I remember correctly the last RfC proposing that we allow flags in lists was unanimously opposed, so let's not pretend this is just a couple of flag-hating editors standing in the way of some silent majority on this particular subset of articles. If people really think the nationality is important - even though airlines are not national representatives, and airliners are ordered by businesses rather than states - then write the nationality instead uf using an ambiguous little picture of a national symbol. bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove per the MoS on their use. The purchasing airlines do not represent their nation. If it is important that the origin of the purchaser is mentioned, then it should be spelt clearly not hidden behind an icon (and a small not always obvious one). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove - This is decorative cruft in complete violation of MOSFLAG, and generating very messy tables. Flags on their own are useless if the flag isn't recognised or the user cannot see them, while as noted above, there are operators where the nationality is multiple (like Scandanavian or CHC Helicopter (with many separate national operating divisions). And by the way, this isn't a vote - the strength of the argument is what matters rather than the number of !voters.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove Flags used like this are decorative, add no information, and pointlessly over-emphasise nationality over other more interesting things. Our readers can read; use words. --John (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove as per what others said. Also, the arguments for keeping are futile. But I do agree this behaviour should then be applied to all other airliner pages, too. Jan olieslagers (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove The fact that certain airlines are restricted from ordering certain aircraft is a complex issue nor do I know why so why does it have something to do with a certain flag?Curb Chain (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove Flags, like other "pretty things" were deprecated long ago in infoboxes as purely decoration. Editors saw them as the start of a move towards "my aircraft/country is better than yours", a debate that no one wanted to revive, but more importantly, it tends to become a distraction in most cases. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
  • Remove, per MOS:FLAG. In this context the airline does not "represent" the country, as required by MOS. If the country is important, write it as a word - but I don't believe the country is important here. The flag alone is not easily readable (readers may not recognize all flags); if the the country is required (which I don't believe it is) and written as text, the flag adds no value. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove per MOS:FLAG as the flag adds no value in this context. If flag icons don't have any added value to the text, they should be avoided and country name should be used instead of flag icons. Also, usage of flag icons in this context promotes a national pride what should be avoided in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. Same applies to flag icons in all airlines/aircraft articles, so all articles in these categories should be cleaned up. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding Back "Country Data" In Response To "Not Having Flags" RfC Failing

You have to give a citation that the airline represents the country. In the RfC and the talk page's section above it discussion has commented that such information is unnecessary, irrelevant, unrelated, uncorrelated. I am concerned that some editors still want to make a tenuous connection between the a certain country and a certain airline/airplane model. Reinserting information such as just a "Canada", or an additional heading and thus column into a table to indicate somehow an airline/airplane model is connected to a country is breaching WP:OR particiularly WP:SYN. Please do not do this, and if you do discuss first.Curb Chain (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you are talking about, does your comment just indicate that the country should not be shown in list of orders on this page? MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Airlines certainly have national identity (or country association) and it is very relevant to aircraft orders and aircraft operation as, for example, airlines of certain countries have restrictions related to certain types of aircraft. To insist that airlines do not have country association or that it is irrelevant is plain wrong. C1010 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
That's just Iran, who is forbidden from buying US-built aircraft because of sanctions not because the Iranian government is pressuring Iran Air to do so. It is very uncommon for the government of a country to influence their airlines as to what aircraft to buy. —Compdude123 01:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is just plain wrong. It is not "just Iran" and not just "US-built aircraft", there are other countries and other types of aircraft involved, and I certainly did not say anything about "Iranian government is pressuring Iran Air". What I said was that airlines of certain countries have restrictions related to certain types of aircraft and it is very relevant to aircraft orders and aircraft operation. C1010 (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
@User:C1010: They way I see it is that planes and Airlines are generally nongovernment entities, and to apply a country name/label or flag to it or beside it is WP:SYN and unnecessary.Curb Chain (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that airline's country association is original research [1][2][3] or unnecessary (see the restrictions discussion above). C1010 (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that if it is a case that politics (internal or external) affects the sales of a given manufacturer in general to certain countries, then that info would be relevant to the article (and sourced of course). If it was the case for specific aircraft and not all aircraft from a manufacturer when it would be otherwise expected (eg civilian and not military), then the point would be made in the text of the article and not by inference. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thankfully, political influence over airliner acquisition is now rare - but it does happen sometimes. In cases where it has happened, we really ought to cover it in sourced, neutral prose in the appropriate article - rather than adding a "country" value to every single order of every single airliner with an undertext that some of these purchases may have been influenced by politics, nudge nudge, wink wink. bobrayner (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
OK so you are talking about not using the country on list of orders, just to be sure that it doesnt effect the use of country names in operators list, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think WP:MOSFLAG would still apply to those - airlines are businesses, not ambassadors or national sports teams. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought this was about using country names, the flag discussion different see above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm My mistake; sorry. bobrayner (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: No, you are on the right track. Airlines and planes (models/marques) are not government owned, so making a connection with "country data" or country codes or with graphics/icons like flags is original research and irrelevant.Curb Chain (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the above comments, it's pretty clear indicating through flags or a country-label because the plane has been ordered by a specific country is irrelevant and to contravene this is fancruft. Airlines may indeed be headquartered in certain countries, and with the special case of Scandinavian Airlines, we can still note that it is headquartered in 3 (different) countries, but not with flags.Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying get rid of flags and countries, or just get rid of flags and replace them with country labels? —Compdude123 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Both. I am saying indication of countries is irrelevant. This was initially done only with flags, but any sort of reference to the country is as irrelevant as a appending a flag to a multinational.Curb Chain (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Now we know you want to get rid of flags and countries still not clear that you mean just the orders list on this page or other parts of the article or other articles or what. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If the flags and a connection between countries and planes are made but the connection is irrelevant, it should not be used. This applies too all articles per WP:FLAGICONWP:ICON. Are flags used elsewhere on the article?Curb Chain (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Flag Templates (which includes the link to the country) are used widely in Operators sections of many articles - examples include Supermarine Spitfire (list of nations operating aircraft), Eurocopter_AS350#Operators where there are separate lists of civil, government/police and military operators, which are grouped by nationality, and de Havilland Comet. Use in that way, with the operators grouped by nationality seems to me to be compliant with MOSICON, particularly for government, police and military users where nationality is absolutely relevant.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

"Where" -> "Were" needs correcting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.71.227 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been removed already (odd double entry too). 82.3.71.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Infobox photo

Original photo of aircraft in Aeroflot markings
proposed photo to be used of aircraft in Armvia markings

There has a been a bit of an edit war going on as to which photo should be included in the info box as the lead photo for this article. As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES "Many existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features. These images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this action will improve the article on the article's talk page."

As can be seen at the right, these are the two photos that have been edit-warred over. Personally I am neutral, I just reverted to the original photo so we can have a discussion whether it needs to be changed or not. So let's hear the pros and cons to each one and see if we can come up with a consensus to change it or not. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Aeroflot picture looks better. The livery is more beautiful, and the picture is more detailed. It shows the plane from an optimal angle; one can better see the landing gear and the wing design. Nanobear (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the article to the Aeroflot picture due to the following reasons:
  1. Aeroflot is by far the major user of the type
  2. The Armavia picture is already present in the article
  3. I believe Pogosyan named Aeroflot as the launch airline for Superjet.
Regards, C1010 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They are both excellent photographs; why not compromise and use both in the article, the Aeroflot as the infobox image with the Armavia photograph appearing prominently in the body of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I was the one who originally chose both of those pictures for the infobox photo. When this aircraft first entered service, I replaced the former test aircraft image with the Armavia photo. It's a good photo, but the aircraft was facing right, instead of facing left (towards the text) which seems to be preferred for infobox photos. Later I found the Aeroflot pic on Commons and changed the infobox photo again to that photo. Though the Armavia photo looks better and more colorful than the Aeroflot image, the Aeroflot image should stay because there is already an Armavia image in the "Operational History" section of the article. —Compdude123 23:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The Armavia photo is far better than the Aeroflot one, more vivid and colorful. And Aeroflot IS NOT launch airline for SSJ 100 ToiSamy (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The Armavia photo is also much higher resolution than the Aeroflot image. —Compdude123 16:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
What airline is the launch airline then? C1010 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Armavia is the launch customer but Aeroflot is the largest operator. —Compdude123 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that either photo is acceptable: it is not a very important which gets chosen. I think I'd just go with whichever is there now and leave it at that. If two people are determined enough to fight over it, I think they should both be censured for wasting police time or something. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well this discussion seems to have come to an end after four days with no further comment. I think in reading what everyone has written here that the consensus is not to switch the info box photo, but to include the proposed photo in a prominent position in the article. I will go ahead and do that and everyone can see how that looks. - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Role of Boeing

Now written "designed by the civil aircraft division of the Russian aerospace company Sukhoi in co-operation with its main partner Boeing"

Any sources that Boeing designed something here at all? Simple try gives

"Consultancy in the field of project management, market planning, certification and customer support."

What does this have to designing? If nothing, why we write it so that one can get an impression that Boeing designed something here? Longbowman (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Orders: International Lease Finance Corporation

The Orders section mentions a customer Finance Leasing Company ordering both for its self and for Yakutia Airlines. Could it be this is meant to indicate International Lease Finance Corporation more commonly known as ILFC ? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sukhoi website makes no mention of any outstanding orders for "Finance Leasing Company" (FLC) apart from the two for Yakutia, but it is a Russian company nothing to do with ILFC, it is what the russians call an Open Joint-Stock Company and it is part of the russian United Aircraft Corporation refer to http://www.f-l-c.ru/ MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for clarification! Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

New interesting photos available at Commons

Hi, a handful of stunning photos of the SSJ have just landed at Commons. This might make for interesting upgrades to the article. Ariadacapo (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And more photos have landed now incoming at Commons Category:Files from the SuperJet International Flickr stream, thanks to the remarkable work of User:Russavia. Please forgive me for indulging into a little florilège:
Not all those photos will be relevant for this article, but many can be useful at Wikipedia! Relevant categories:
All for your viewing pleasure, insatiable curiosity, and limitless CC-by-sa re-use. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

Considering the recent repeated revert on the lead image to replace it with a low resolution picture, I contacted the uploader for further clarification. Will come back when get any response. Jee 04:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the recent repeated revert on the lead image the Paris File:SSJ100 in Paris - SSJ100 hunt (5693088541).jpg|SSJ100 in Paris - SSJ100 hunt (5693088541)image is much better--105.108.42.231 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

replace it with Paris image -the other is covering up most of the fuselage Paris is better--Shqipërisëtonluk (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. The paris image is of very low resolution. See WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. Reverted. tr (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Significance of negative numbers in orders table?

What is the significance of the negative numbers in the deliveries coloumn of the orders table? I can't see any explanation in the article, nor in the reference.--Nick Moss (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

They are pending orders (not delivered yet). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Kartika Airlines

Kartika Airlines is listed as having ordered 50 of these aircraft (or roughly one in six of the total orders), but its article says that the airline ceased operations in 2010. Google also isn't turning up a reference for the airline still existing. Should this be removed from the table? Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

orders

orders are not up to date! careful

these sources "Interjet Takes Up Option For Sukhoi Superjets." RIA Novosti (En.beta.rian.ru). Retrieved 10 July 2012. "Third Sukhoi Superjet 100 delivered to Interjet". Aviationnews.Eu. Retrieved 2013-11-07. are not reliable

also in Flight testing

On 28 January 2007, the first SSJ was transported by an Antonov 124 from Komsomolsk-on-Amur to the city of Zhukovsky near Moscow for ground tests. A representative of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft announced on 13 November 2007, the completion of static tests necessary for conducting the first flight.

is misplaced--Linkintupl (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New Image

As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES definition of angles of view and aircraft features, i have change an old image because the old one is not about the aircraft but rather about the scene but this shows the aircraft only! to a better image--Cyclopsox (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck

and a better angel also?--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck
the position of the wing not like an a column standing upright.--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck

or maybe this one.--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck

They all have "scenes". The first image here looks odd, and the background is too distracting. The second one is better that that, but I still like the original. There's nothing wrong with have an attractive image in the Lead, as that helps to draw the readers' attention to the article. - BilCat (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
actually my friend you said "There's nothing wrong with have an attractive image in the Lead" that is the purpose of the image is used for the atracrt scene rather than the aircraft itself? per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES the lead image should be about the aircraft only!--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck

helps to draw the readers' attention to the article? it is more like it helps to draw the readers' attention to the scene image rather than the aircraft which this article is all about!--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck

I agree with BilCat. The background of the top picture with hangars, tents, etc. is too distracting. The picture of the business jet has the right wing clipped and it's missing its right corner. The current picture in the article is a featured picture and should remain. Dr. K. 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The socks are back again. I've informed the blocking admin. - BilCat (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Hi, our company, EDM Ltd (www.edm.ltd.uk), manufactured the Sukhoi Superjet 100 training equipment that features in the photo labeled as a 'Ground rig for evacuation slide testing' in this article. This description is not accurate and we'd be grateful if you could amend the description of this equipment to 'Cabin Emergency Evacuation Trainer on a motion platform'. Many thanks. Adrian Lambert, Head of Global Marketing, EDM Ltd.

Adrianlambert71 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries table and numbers

Somebody fix that table. It's a mess! Also, the table says 61 aircraft are operational, the infobox says 100 were produced. Where are the balance 39 planes? Does anyone even check those numbers? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Sukhoi Superjet 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sukhoi Superjet 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"comparable role, configuration and era"

In the "See also" section, the article features a list titled "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era". I expect it to contain a list of most notable competitors and contemporary aircraft of comparable performance. This seems to be the current consensus across aircraft articles (e.g. the 747 has the 773 and C-5 listed there). Rcbutcher would rather interpret the title in a strict sense (identical role, configuration and era) which here excludes a number of list items. Are there other opinions? Should we perhaps rename that section as “contemporary aircraft of comparable capabilities” or something similar?
@Rcbutcher: you are expected to remain civil and constructive in your edit summaries. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A rear-engined aircraft is a very different configuration to a wing-engined aircraft of similar size. The centre of gravity is different, aerodynamics are different, wing works differently and is positioned differently. They are not of "comparable configuration" despite both having two engines. The section heading does not say "competing aircraft". Rcbutcher (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"Should we perhaps rename that section as “contemporary aircraft of comparable capabilities” or something similar?". Yes, I think something like that could be more useful : For commercial aircraft (also military) it is useful to compare competing aircraft, even if they compete by having somewhat different configurations. There really two separate issues of interest here : other similar aircraft, and competing aircraft. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
That wording is part of the {{aircontent}}, and changing it is better discussed there, it can't be changed from here. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with comparing competing aircraft is that it tends to be more subjective, where as configuration is more objective. - BilCat (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
{{aircontent}} displays "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era" on the page but its internal comments section refers to "aircraft that are of similar Role, Era, and Capability this design". This is contradictory : configuration and capability are different things.
I realise there are various ways of considering this issue, there is already a dispute with military aircraft over what "comparable" means to the extent that the section has been removed altogether from some fighter aircraft. We don't want to lose a useful section over minor disagreements. Where is the appropriate place to discuss this ? Rcbutcher (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Aircontent is the talk page for the template itself. However, WT:AIR is the aircraft project's talk page, and a better place to get more editors involved. - BilCat (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. I have really no desire whatsoever to start a template discussion in WT:AIR, so I’m good with the article as it is now. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100/Archive_1&oldid=1137209858"