Jump to content

Talk:Sukhoi Superjet 100/Archive 2

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sukhoi Superjet 100. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sukhoi Superjet 100. 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) 22:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sukhoi Superjet 100. 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) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead image change

I am replacing the lead image of the SSJ-100 with one under the Aeroflot brand since lead images of most civilian aircraft are under a commercial brand. The current lead image would be put under design and development. I hope this change gets accepted when this is implemented. If not, feel free to revert it. Thanks.

Image that will be used: File:Aeroflot Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 RA-89002 SVO 2012-4-6.png

- Josephua (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You should gain consensus first as noted in the infobox :"Do not change lead image without talk page consensus". My POV is that the air to air pic is nicely unusual for airliner pics while the aeroflot pic is more bland. there is no need for any operator to show on the main pic, which only need to show the plane config.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Quality Improvement

I believe that it is now the time to have the article to be quality-checked and hopefully reach B status. Any time when this is going to happen? Josephua (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

New page for orders for Sukhoi Superjet?

I believe that Sukhoi Superjet should get a page with its orders on its own. I believe the article itself is a bit long than its counterparts due to its table in the orders section. The Superjet should have an article devoted to a list class like other tables on civilian aircraft, notably Airbus and Boeing related ones. In addition, the tables devoted to Airbus and Boeing aircraft have an attractive color hue, giving the list class articles a less boring feel. Do you agree? - Josephua (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Move to Sukhoi Superjet

@Marc Lacoste: Hey, do you think it is a good to move Sukhoi Superjet 100 to just Sukhoi Superjet. We can merge Sukhoi Superjet 130 with the page and make the page describe the family of Sukhoi Superjets: the Sukhoi Superjet 100 (original variant), the Sukhoi Superjet 75 (shrink variant), and the Sukhoi Superjet 130 (extended variant). The page would follow the steps of other airliners and their pages, with the main articles usually describing the families together. Or we could wait until the Sukhoi Superjet 75 goes into mass production and start the changes. What do you think? - Josephua (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As it is just a project, I think Sukhoi Superjet 130 should not be a separate article and should be merged into this one. The Superjet 75 article may be separated when it had made its first flight, but even then I would prefer not having a separate article for a simple variant (eg there are no A220-100 and A220-300 separate articles). --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: Understood. Also, just to let you know, I deleted the section that you kept back in the edit you made after because I thought Sukhoi already made its decision to go with the Sukhoi Superjet 75 rather than the Superjet Stretch in February 2018 (a part of Q1 2018). Just want to know your opinion on this matter. - Josephua (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Do not edit an article because you "thought" something, it is WP:OR. Use only refs and update tense if they are dated, they still have value to show development directions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: I know this is a late response but to respond: okay, maybe it was poor choice of words, better to say "infer". I inferred Sukhoi made its decision to develop the 75 over the Stretch in the Q1 period.

February 2018 Singapore Air Show, Sukhoi launched a 75-seat shrink, investing several hundred million dollars to enter service in 2022. With a smaller, optimised aluminium or composite wing, it would be powered by 17,000 lbf (76 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW1200Gs, detuned SaM146s or Aviadvigatel PD-14 derived PD-7s.

- from Superjet 75 section. So Sukhoi already made a decision already in Q1 2018 (Feb 2018) with the launch of the SSJ 75 over the Stretch. In addition, you deleted the presorted sections in the list of deliveries and operation of the SSJ-100s, however, other airliners such as the Airbus A220 and the Airbus A320neo had kept these sections for a long period of time to the present as seen in List of Airbus A320neo family orders and deliveries and List of Airbus A220 orders and deliveries so I thought the SSJ100 list can base its design off of these. - Josephua (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

inferring ("deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.") is still WP:OR. I didn't deleted the bullet list orders section, it was moved to the relevant article, like the A320/A220 O&D articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: For the first point. Thank you for your reply. I did not know that. For the second point, I meant the 2 lists, one of which was presorted by date and the other presorted by customer. You deleted the list that was presorted by customer of which you thought it unnecessary and believed that people can use the sorting option of the list that categorizes by date to sort the aircraft. However, the two lists, presorted by date and presorted by customer, appear under the other aircraft such as the A220 and A320 O&D. - Josephua (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Having two tables with the same info just with the order varying while they are sortable does not make sense.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: So I'm guessing you disagree with the current layout of the tables in the A220 and A320 O&D articles. Also, congrats on helping Sukhoi Superjet 100 get from C-class to B-class status. - Josephua (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

price to interjet

@Rosbif73: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations : Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources... but aggregating different sources is borderline, and $1.3-2.6M seems really low, even for a new entrant willing to have a western operator, while a new CRJ1000 discounted price is $24.8M. Maybe a misunderstanding for the order of magnitude.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect we need to be reading something into their choice of the term "capital cost" rather than price. Maybe they negotiated some sort of deal whereby only part of the price was actually paid out as an upfront capital cost (with the rest being some sort of lease perhaps)? That could also explain why they are "in talks with Sukhoi" [1] about selling the SSJs - whereas if they were already fully owned they could just sell them to a third party without involving Sukhoi. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Also note the Interjet aircraft purchase would have been with SuperJet International rather than the Russians. MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Here capital cost is opposed to operating cost, if they were leased it would not be hidden, like the Eastern Air Lines Airbus A300s. Multiple acquisition schemes could be envisioned though, like multiple payments over time and a return clause. But still "capital cost" would be explicit like "yearly payments for ten are equivalent to an A320 pre-delivery payment" or something like that. Maybe interjet is going to sell them to Sukhoi because nobody else is interested and Sukhoi don't want them to degrade the aircraft image, like Airbus taking back Singapore's A340-500s, or what they should have with Dr.Peters A380s. But I think it's too much suppositions for wikipedia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh just to add I think we dont need to include the "price to Interjet" para, it is a good example of original research, synthesis and guess work as well as being of no relevance to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, it shows the difficulties for Sukhoi to become accepted by Western operators, and by then the difficulties for new entrants like the MC-21 or by the biggest threat to A+B, the C919 and C929.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with showing the difficulties in being accepted in the west, just the made up figures could be misleading, perhaps just include the statement by Interjet and remove the made-up figures. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I removed the calculation but the Interjet's statement include "pre-delivery payment", which has to be explained, and then the explanation cite the "list price", which is available.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I doubt the C919 is ever a threat to the Irkut MC-21. It has an introduction a year later than the Irkut MC-21 and it is an extremely obscure plane and the Chinese stereotype is stuck to it. The CR929 is a joint-venture project between the UAC and Comac and it is a different plane to the Irkut MC-21 as it has a larger capacity and is wide-body. The SSJ-100 currently at the moment does not need Western buyers now. Russian airliners like S7 are planning to buy it and a large customer could be Iran due to sanctions by Western countries. SSJ-100, yes, is probably losing its grip on the Western market but I believe Peru can help them cling on it. - Josephua (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hot on the heels of Interjet's denial [2], Flight Global has published a rebuttal in the form of an opinion piece [3]. Perhaps safest to drop this whole paragraph until the truth becomes clearer?

Conversion to net orders

I think the orders in the orders and deliveries by year table in the orders and deliveries section should be converted to net orders. As a result, the table and the bar chart would have to omit orders from cancelled orders or bankrupt airlines. Deliveries would have to be changed as well. SSJ100s returned would subtract the deliveries. SSJ100s who are kept in an inventory and not delivered back can be kept in the table. This will as a result create a more accurate view by readers of the airliner of its success in the airliner market. Thoughts? - Josephua (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

the lack of a WP:Reliable source for orders should lead us to remove those per WP:OR.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

main picture

  • current, over italy coast
    current, over italy coast
  • proposed, over clouds
    proposed, over clouds

The current picture is great, but while browsing through other air-to-air SS100 pictures, I found the proposed one, which perhaps depicts more clearly its configuration (the current is taken with a wide angle lens, exaggerating the nose size) and has a less busy, less distracting background, but flies away from the text in wikipedia's default layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. - Josephua (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Replace sources for deliveries

I think we should replace the sources describing deliveries and number of aircraft produced with information by planespotters.net. Here is the link: https://www.planespotters.net/production-list/Sukhoi/Superjet-100. It is not a primary source, but a secondary source. It is more convenient as it is translated, and has the same information as the company-owned database, which is sketchy and not translated well. - Josephua (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding translation difficulties is better. Still a fan site, not a WP:RS from an established publisher. It doesn't show the number produced. Seems to get its data from Airlinerlist.com, again a fan site with no editorial review.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

ICAO noise limits

(moved from my user talk page, more relevant here--Marc Lacoste (talk))

It's always better to discuss an edit before removing it arbitrarily, but your reversion of my edit of the "importance" tag doesn't help to improve the article. The ICAO noise limits are universal and really don't need explanation. However, some bright spark decided to sprinkle "importance" tags throughout this article, thereby making a mess of an otherwise reasonably competent article. I thought I'd try a simple explanation of the reason for higher noise limit standards, but it appears that you don't accept it. Since the actual explanation of the importance of ICAO noise limits might take several paragraphs, I thought I'd try adding a simple explanation based on the London City Airport experience:

"Due to the airport's proximity to Central London, it has stringent rules imposed to limit the noise impact from aircraft operations"

Obviously this didn't work for you. Since the avalanche of "importance", "verification needed", and "citation needed" tags appear to be mostly pointless spam or harassment, I thought that simple explanations ,might suffice (as explained above). Clearly this didn't work because you reverted right away.

Since the reason for noise limits is common knowledge now, it seems reasonable to simply remove the "importance" tag, and so I did. I understand your nervousness about trying to include an "importance" explanation, like trying to explain the importance of energy conservation, so I deleted the tag to start the chore of cleaning up all the similar pointless tags that make a hash of an otherwise reasonable article.

In closing, I hope you will understand the importance of discussion before reverting, simply because nobody likes getting tied up in 3 reverts issues. It's much more reasonable to discuss before reverting. I see that once again you have reverted without discussion, so I hope you can start discussing so that it doesn't become necessary to continue reverting your reverts, thereby using up precious time in pointless disputes.

Cheers!-- 03:03, 18 March 2019 Santamoly

Hello, as this discussion is about the SSJ100, it should be moved in its talk page rather than in an user talk page. If you don't mind I will move it there.
In last December, u:Josephua proposed to nominate Sukhoi Superjet 100 to good article. As it seemed far away IMO, I went through and checked the references, shorten verbose sentences. I've added maintenance templates were I find less than useful statements, verifications needed, and so on from rev 873054173 to 874323569. See the history for details.
As noted in the "importance" tag: noise and emissions levels that satisfy current ICAO requirements.-importance-inline reason= of course, otherwise it would'nt be allowed to fly. Meeting regulations is nothing extraordinary. It's like every other airliner, nothing special. The discussion is already initiated in the tag reason, you have to address it to continue the discussion. If the "importance", "verification needed", and "citation needed" maintenance tag bothers you, remove the tagged material or provide a reliable source. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The whole paragraph that starts "The design meets.." is not really encyclopedic or relevant and can probably be deleted, this will also remove the noise comment as well. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Planespotters.net as reliable source?

I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, but I can only find Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 8#Planespotters.net which is hardly definitive. Given that Sukhoi doesn't seem to have official public O&D lists like Airbus and Boeing do, are we prepared to accept planespotters.net as a source for the number of airframes built? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Planespotters.net, being a fan-updated database, falls within User-generated content. It does not mean it's inaccurate, but it's not a WP:RS. Others could be used with the same disclaimer: rzjets, superjet100.info, airfleets, abcdlist... I would think the best way would be to use a WP:RS for the "Number built" in the infobox (like a reputable aviation media article or a sukhoi press release for a milestone like the XXXth delivery) and keep the User-generated databases in the #Orders and deliveries section. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW, some reliable databases exists, like the flighglobal or aviationweek ones, but they are behind (costly) paywalls.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I just wanted to check what the consensus was on planespotters. For the SSJ, the best recent figure I've found in a RS is 136 aircraft "in permanent commercial operation" as of 23 December 2018, per [4] – but that doesn't tell us how many of those built are not in operation! Rosbif73 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
150+.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want a reliable source, use ASN (Aviation Safety Network) OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

ASN at first glance doesn't give the information that Rosbif73 was looking for. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Planespotters as reliable source, however, might help. Garretka (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I knew I'd seen that discussion somewhere recently. Thanks, Garretja. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Main image

@Samf4u: @MilborneOne: Could we change the image for this one?

  • current
    current
  • proposed
    proposed

It has a better angle? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with your suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

All good then!! OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The current one was proposed a few months ago in #main_picture. I think it better depicts the aircraft, being an air-to-air picture, not an approach pic.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Note the proposed Aeroflot pic illustrates the Sukhoi Superjet 100#Orders and deliveries section

But you cannot see 3/4 of the aircraft as with this on. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Any picture of a 3D subject can only show half of it. In both pictures, the fuselage angle from the horizon is similar, but the current shows the aircraft from above while the proposed shows it from below. I think it better conveys the low wing config with suspended engine nacelles. In the proposed image, the engine covers a part of the wing, and the wing itself covers a part of the tail. The clean config seems more representative of the aircraft mission than the specific landing config.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I’m a previous similar discussion regarding title images, we all agreed to the image of the Aeroflots angle / approach. The gear is down, the sky is clearer. And again, in the white photo you aren’t seeing that, just a plane that looks like a stunt double. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Which previous discussion? The gear down is not better, and can be detrimental IMO. The sky is cloudy in both pics, but the smaller clouds are more understandable in the current pic. "a stunt double" does not makes sense, these are airliners.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Firslty it’s slang. Secondly, see the talk page on the CRJ-700 talk page. Again, it’s better with an approach photo where you see the front, the gear and 3/4 of the aircraft. So don’t snap at me. I am stating information from the last discussion. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid slang, and explain clearly what you meant. In Talk:Bombardier_CRJ700_series#Infobox_Image_change we only selected a better picture than the previous one, we didn't established new rules like "approach photo where you see the front, the gear and 3/4 of the aircraft".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don’t know you. And from my experience I know people that are good with images such as @MilborneOne:. I don’t understand why you are disagreeeing. Not to be rude but you were not even a part of the discussion at first and then you come in all of the sudden? Like I said I think the Aeroflot image should be used. Myself and Milborne have agreed with it so there are more people for the image to be used. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what is WP:Consensus.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to make it clear I dont have a problem with either image but if Marc has a reasonable objection to it then we should consider not changing it. We dont have a precedent that says images must be changed regularly and I believe the only consistent preference is for airborne shots. Oh and Orbital please tone down the personal remarks it doesnt help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s all good Milborne, but the current image is rubbish. From what I’ve seen from the 757 discussion a while ago, they like planes going left (nose wise). And there is a proper livery of the superjet 100. I mean take the 767 you don’t see the photo of it’s test flight as it’s main image. I feel like the image should be changed solely beucase there are A) aircrafts using it. B) it’s been over 10 years since it’s first flight. C) the angle of it flying to left is better especially when you photos of the 757, 767 etc. It’s from what I’ve seen in discussions and well all the pages about planes, the vast majority have a right to left image of a plane if that makes sense. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Left-facing pics can be preferred all things being equal, but I can't find a similar air-to-air pic left facing. I agree a manufacturer livery does not convey the "in service" meaning, but the point is to show the aircraft configuration, not an airline. Note this picture (and many from the same series) are from renowned aircraft photographer Katsuhiko Tokunaga.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s what I’m saying, it’s the best left photo we have so why don’t we use it? Useless you can find something better? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: You appear to be misinterpreting things. Left-facing pics can be preferred all things being equal (my bold), but clearly in Marc's opinion all things are not equal. I don't have a particularly strong preference either way, though I do tend to agree with Marc that the existing pic gives a better view than your proposed replacement, which is in any case already used lower down the page. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep it then. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

On Contradiction

I did not tame the source. The source instead was misinterpreted to say that the certification tests was ongoing in that time. This is not what the source has stated. The source stated that the tests for certification were completed, not the certification itself. What I did was correcting the text to what the source had said, and by correcting it, render the next sentence in the next paragraph non-contradictory as it had stated that the certification itself was 90% complete. - Josephua (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Rosbif73: added the template on 18 December because the previous paragraph stated "By 28 May 2010, all engine certification tests were completed" (Russia Today, 28 May 2010) and the flagged sentence noted "SaM146 engine problems" (The Moscow Times, 6 July 2010). When you removed the template yesterday, you did not resolve the contradiction, and you also changed the first statement from " all engine certification tests were completed " to "all tests needed for certification were completed", not citing the engine and leaving an ambiguity as if it was about the aircraft, the article subject. In the second paragraph, the "certification was 90% complete" is about the aircraft, not the engine, and does not contradict the previous statement. Does that makes sense?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Then add “engine” to the modified text, so it would be “all engine tests needed for certification were completed.” As a result, engine tests are achieved so certification can start. During certification, the engines hit a problem that was not expected during testing and therefore was delayed, therefore not contradicting the statement on engines. And yes, I see your last point. - Josephua (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like you have a reasonable explanation for the apparent contradiction, consistent with the sources, so feel free to clarify the wording and remove the tag. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources for Flight Testing Section

Here is a source that can be used for the mess that is the flight testing section, with hordes of contradictions and citations needed. I think this talk section should be for adding new sources to help clean it up.

Have a good day. - Josephua (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

aerospace-technology.com should be avoided as it os on the WP:Spam-blacklist. Superjetinternational may be used for simple facts (not commentary / comparisons / analysis) as it is a WP:PRIMARY source. AIN online is a reliable aviation media.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
But wasn't aerospace.technology.com (and its related websites) on the spam blacklist because it was being spammed (which it has been) rather than not being a reliable source. While I don't think that it passes WP:RS myself, I'm not sure that it has been discussed on WP:RSN (at least I cannot find a discussion).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it was spammed itself, but I agree it does not looks like a reliable source for me neither: more like a link farm trying to gain some respectability than a serious reporting work with any editorial control: no names and most articles looks like republished press releases. The about-us details an alectronic magazine dead since five years and "an extensive skill base in [...] search engine optimisation: [...] optimised copy, [...] link-building and other SEO techniques". A subsidiary of GlobalData, "a data analytics and media company that was established in 1999, and has been listed on the London Stock Exchange since 2000".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues

Here are the sources that have issues or text that do not have citations to complete article clean-up. Feel free to edit the list if changes were completed.

  • Better Source Needed
    • [104] -> Native English ref would be better
    • [105] -> Native English ref would be better
  • Verification needed
    • [30]
    • [57]

You're welcome. - Josephua (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I can work on source [11]([6] in edit mode) in finding an alternative to Aerospace-technology (but if I find none, @Rosbif73:, please delete it) and an alternative to source [124]([121] in edit mode). I am waiting for @Marc Lacoste: to verify if [30]([26] in edit mode) is non-contradictory anymore. In addition, I would prefer to delete the sentence in the Variants: 130-140 seat stretch section as it is both contradictory and no citation supports it, so we can know that it is wrong and should be rid of. I also think for source [118] and [117] that we should delete those templates and instead replace it with a notice that the sources given are unreliable so approach the data with caution, with the only verifiable data is that there are more than 150 aircraft built as supported by the source in the infobox. In addition, we should copy and paste: "It is impossible to confirm the accuracy of the Superjet order backlog as the manufacturer does not provide up to date order information, and there have been no updates on many longstanding orders" from List of Sukhoi Superjet 100 orders and deliveries under this section. I cannot do much to source [102]([99] in edit mode) and the sources that are under the verification needed template due to my lack of experience or exposure to these areas but for the rest I can input. - Josephua (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want to do, just go ahead and edit step by step, we'll go through it then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: We can start out by reasoning on how to phrase the statement on the engines not functioning during flight testing to remove the contradiction.
Not related, but the recent news is damning to the Superjet 100. I send my condolences, as well as predicting lack of maintenance and after-sale support for the cause of the incident, as we had seen in recent trends. - Josephua (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: & @Marc Lacoste: I have a source to replace the Aerospace-technology source ([11]([6] in edit mode)): https://www.airplaneupdate.com/2019/03/sukhoi-superjet-100.html. Can you verify? - Josephua (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a personal WP:blog: no editorial review, only one author with a blogger profile and no bio.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I have not found a citation for the Aerospace-technology source ([11]([6] in edit mode)) yet. I believe this source is from a magazine, perhaps Flight International? Either way, I found a PDF document of a Flight International Magazine that that can assist in the development section: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/2003/2003%20-%202475.PDF - Josephua (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I mined the flight ref to remove as much as possible the content supported by Aerospace-technology: I left a preexisting unimportant statement, remove it if you agree.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed the source. I found the FlightGlobal website version on what we are currently working on: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sukhoi-led-rrj-wins-rosaviakosmos-tender-162973/. In addition, I found a source from FlightGlobal in response to the contradiction. It may help remove the contradiction, or it may confuse the chronological timeline even more: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/snecma-and-npo-set-to-power-rrj-160544/. - Josephua (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is another source from FlightGlobal that confirms that April 2003 was the date where Sukhoi accepted the SaM146 over the PW800, when on April 29, 2003, signed a formal memorandum of understanding with Snecma: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/snecma-confident-of-more-work-on-rrj-family-165055/. I would have suggested that FlightGlobal's sources are more reliable than the primary source given by the United Aircraft Corporation, as it tells a great deal of information of the engine competition between the SaM146 and PW800 for the engine of the SSJ100. - Josephua (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: I addressed the two contradictions located within the development section. Remove the contradictory templates if you agree that it has now created consistency. - Josephua (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: Can we trust this source: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.planepix.ch/webpage/SSJ100/datasheet/Sukhoi%20Superjet%20SSJ100%20Datasheet.pdf, to replace the self-published source and Planespotters source in the Orders and Deliveries section. I notice this sourced was used in the Infobox section, which states 162 aircraft are being used, and I was wondering if this is verifiable. - Josephua (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
not really, it'also self-published.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I also cannot find a reliable source for the claim that the Superjet that bounced in Iceland was repaired and fixed except for something from Planespotters, the fan site. Should we delete the text, "The aircraft was repaired and flew again on 27 December 2013," due to lack of reliable sources? - Josephua (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I also think the following text that was marked by [importance?] should be deleted: "In 2005, Aeroflot ordered 30 Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft with 98 seats in one class. Later, the airline decided to upgrade the avionics (FMS and weather radar) and modify the aircraft configuration to have 87 seats in two classes, with extra cabin crew seat, lavatory and galley. To avoid delivery delays, the first 10 SSJ100s were delivered with the original "light" specification; subsequent aircraft were updated ("full"). In the first half of 2014 Sukhoi began to replace Aeroflot's "light" aircraft by "full" versions. The last "full" version was delivered in June 2014; "light" aircraft are operated by other Russian airlines." I myself do not see a purpose in this text in this article, and I find it more fitting to be in the Aeroflot article. Should the text stay, we should move it to a different part of the article, though I am not so sure where to place it. - Josephua (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: & @Marc Lacoste: Can you verify these sources an editor had placed under the now deleted "Possible Design Flaws" section: https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2018/11/04/the-airlines-ditching-unreliable-russian-sukhoi-superjets/, https://airlinerwatch.com/sukhoi-superjet-underperforms-due-to-a-design-flaw-in-the-engines/, of which it may be used under the Dependability section. - Josephua (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
aviationanalyst seems to be a self-published blog, and while its author seems knowledgeable on aircraft cabin, I'm not sur he's not confusing Safety and dependability. airlinerwatch seems to be published anonymously, and I'm not sure there is journalistic content or just press releases; anyway the article is about the engine teething problems, not any aicraft flaw. Every new engine has some, see the PW1000G, the CFM LEAP or the Trent 1000 right now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think all important sourcing issues have been fixed. - Josephua (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of the article

After we finish fixing the refs and citations of the text, I was wondering if we can increase the lead section into that of two to three paragraphs rather than 1 paragraph, as compared to articles such as Airbus A350 XWB and the Airbus A220. In addition, we should add a lot of details to the Design section and split them accordingly: Overview, Materials, Engine, Cockpit, etc. like the A350 and the Airbus A380 articles. Just wondering. - Josephua (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEAD The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. When I revisited the article last December, I applied those principles : the first sentence identify the subject (in the style of WP:Aircontent) and the following three sentences summarise the main sections : development, design, in service (see comments in the wikicode). Each sentence could be expanded within this guideline, and if it become too large for a single paragraph, it can be split also. The Variants section could also be summarized in the lead, but as none flies, it is too close to WP:SPECULATION for now IMO. The Design section can be expanded with reliable refs, within WP:DUEWEIGHT.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. - Josephua (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: Is this source: https://www.airplaneupdate.com/2019/03/sukhoi-superjet-100.html, verifiable? I am planning to use its contents to expand the Design section of the article. - Josephua (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
answered below Looks like a personal WP:blog: no editorial review, only one author with a blogger profile and no bio.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination to Good Article

I think it is time to nominate Sukhoi Superjet 100 to good article. It's stable, neutral, has a lot of media, mostly, if not all, grammatically correct, factually-accurate and well-written, and verifiable. Opinions? - Josephua (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems far away IMO. I'll go through in the coming days to see what needs to be done.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through a small part and it doesn't looks good.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Here it is. I went through the whole article, checked the references, shorten verbose sentences. I've added maintenance templates were I find less than useful statements, verifications needed, and so on. Do not hesitate to weed out the worse, and it would be nice if someone could add references where needed. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow, the article feels extremely different. Nevertheless, thanks for everything! I'll be making the article a nominee now. - Josephua (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed some of the templates about some contradicting sources. I'll delay the nomination for now. - Josephua (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through the article, primarily for copyediting but also checking some sources. Two things strike me as missing from the history or needing clarification:

  • The former RRJ denomination, which is mentioned only in passing (with no explanation of its meaning) in the Variants section.
  • The rise and fall of the international sales partnership with Leonardo. This is mentioned in the Design section, but we subsequently learn (at the bottom of the Dependability section) that Leonardo pulled out in 2017. Is this partnership still active, or isn't it? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
RRJ denomination: I saw some early 2000s references I still have to WP:MINE
sales partnership with Leonardo: I moved up Leonardo's defection. It should be detailed in SuperJet International, but remember it was just a sales partnership like a deeper distribution agreement, not a manufacturing one, not so important.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it is time to nominate the article. All the important issues have been cleaned up already. - Josephua (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"Importance" tags

Can we start removing the swarm of "importance", "citation needed", and "verification needed" tags that have been inflicted upon this article? The tags appear to be nothing more than spam or harassment since the items they're tagging are completely self-evident. For instance, some prankster has queried the note that the plane meets ICAO emissions and noise standards by requesting the editor to explain the importance of an aircraft meeting ICAO standards. The article is full of such nonsensical tags. How about this one: "static tests were completed before the first flight.[citation needed]" Duh!! Static tests are part of the design phase which always precedes first flight. All the tags were placed in December 2018 by some self-centered basement-dweller with nothing but empty time on his hands. Whoever placed the tags has now had their moment of self-indulgent entertainment; now can we please start removing these things to clean up this otherwise useful article? Santamoly (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You could start by answering politely my answer above.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course! And where would your "answer above" be? Santamoly (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
#ICAO noise limits--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious? What would you like my answer to be? Santamoly (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
[NB: this last sentence made sense on 7 July] In #ICAO noise limits, just above, you did not answered my observation Meeting regulations is nothing extraordinary. It's like every other airliner, nothing special. The discussion is already initiated in the tag reason, you have to address it to continue the discussion. while you wanted a discussion. Anyway, all of this is moot now because we worked with Josephua and Rosbif73 to clean up the article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

New info on Sukhoi Civil Aircraft

@Marc Lacoste: Hey, found a rusaviainsider article about the SSJ100, in which Sukhoi saw a sevenfold drop in profits. Thought it may be of good use to the dependability section. Here is the link: [5] - Josephua (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. That also links to another article[6] about the Russian healthcare ministry preferring the Falcon 7X over the SSJ for medevac use, citing better range and runway performance at a lower cost, despite having been encouraged to choose a domestic solution. This feels a bit too WP:CRYSTAL to include in the article, though. Thoughts? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: I disagree, as basically the summer of the source is this: "According to the Russian planemaker’s July 22 financial report, aircraft sales revenue decreased sevenfold in the first half of this year, to 2.05 billion roubles (US$32.05 million) against last year’s 14.7 billion (US$232.7 million). Total revenue dropped almost fourfold to 4.2 billion roubles (US$66.5 million). This meant the aircraft manufacturer’s net loss increased by 32.7 per cent during the period and now amounts to 1.07 billion roubles (US$17 million)." However, it can be a bit WP:CRYSTAL as this is the revenue for the first half of the year and not the full year, and in the article, "SCAC told Russian Aviation Insider that the company is expecting to increase revenue during the second half of 2019, since most of this year’s SSJ100 deliveries are scheduled for this period." - Josephua (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The report about the drop in profits is fine, and as you'll have seen, I've added it to the article. My comment about crystal ball-gazing was in relation to the second article linked above, about the healthcare ministry's future choice of aircraft. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not think I linked to that article about the Ministry choosing that aircraft though in what I wrote. - Josephua (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you didn't; I was the one who linked to it above, and asked for other editors' thoughts on whether there was anything worth including from it. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: Sorry for the week-late response, as well as my general misunderstanding, but I feel that the language in the reference you linked me, if it were put in the SSJ article, would be used would be a bit, I guess, bit biased against the SSJ, as the information implies that the Russian government is growing skeptical of the SSJ. In addition, the information may give Wikipedia:UNDUE, as there are a lot of information where the SSJ already suffered negative credibility in the dependability section, and I do not think we should push further. There are many instances where customers would choose other regional jet aircraft over the SSJ, and I believe the Russian government should be put under this "customers" category, disregarding the fact that the Russian government is promoting its own airliner industry. These instances should be put in the dependability section of the article of the aircraft that will be chosen. So, applying to this situation, I think the article that you linked, its info should be put under the dependability section of the Falcon 7X, stating that the Russian government chose this to suit its medical purposes. - Josephua (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's worth putting anything on the Falcon 7X page unless an order is placed. On the other hand, it is precisely because the Russian government (or at least one ministry) is hesitant to purchase the SSJ that the information is newsworthy. I don't think it would give undue weight to the SSJ's very real dependability issues if we were to mention it here, but I do feel it might be too speculative. Any other thoughts, anyone? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: Update on Superjet 75, in which S7 Airlines is not happy with: [[7]] - Josephua (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can glean from that for the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Wait for western media coverage, it should not be long.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd already added a sentence before I saw your suggestion, Marc, though of course we can always amend it once Western media picks up on it. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sukhoi Superjet 100/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 02:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi i will be taking this review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I haven't been on this article for a long time, I am prepared to have the article get the green plus by the end of the week. - Josephua (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

  • There are many maintenance tags in the article. These warrant a quick fail but since they are regarding issues with the source i will allow time to fix it.
  • Note 1 raises a few red flags for me as it mentions that the sources used may be unreliable.
  • Grammar is not of the best standard, about every paragraph has some grammatical issues.
  • The style of most of the article is very monotonous. It just goes 'On... In... By...'
  • The article is well depicted with images
  • The article is generally good but I have some concerns which i will go into detail later

Hold

Before I include more detailed comments and queries, please fix the important issues that i have mentioned above. Just from the first subsection alone (Background) I have come up with a long list of problems. The article is in need of a thorough copyedit. and you have 7 days to work on it before i determine if can become a GA but try not to drag it out for too long. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As one of the relatively few regular contributors to this article, I must say I'm not surprised by the assessment above. IMO the article isn't ready for GA status, the request was made too soon.
  • Regarding the specific comment about note 1, I really don't see what can be done. Unlike Boeing and Airbus, Sukhoi does not publish details of orders and deliveries, and the third-party sites that purport to track the figures are essentially self-published. That isn't going to change any time soon.
  • Regarding maintenance tags, I count a total of four: two [verification needed] that it should be possible to deal with quickly, and two [better source needed] that relate to sources in Russian, which are allowed per WP:NONENG although of course English sources would be preferred.
Notwithstanding, I'll do what I can to help over the next few days. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rosbif! - Josephua (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the comments, since I have no access to the sources that are based on the maintenance tag of [verification needed], I will be unable to access them. In addition, there is a maintenance tag [needs update] for the text "Sukhoi expected to produce 30 SSJs in 2018, as in 2017" under Russified SSJ, which I believe I can fix. For the grammar comment, please be more specific with what is wrong. Otherwise, on the monotonous comment, I believe we can re-organize the sentences a bit. - Josephua (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a webarchive copy of one of the references that needed verification, and I have successfully verified it. The other is for a paper journal; the issue in question is available for purchase from [8] though hopefully someone in the WP:AV community might already have a copy... I've made a request on the relevant project talk page. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The [verification needed] tag was added here without any explanation. What precisely is the problem with the reference? Air International is a reliable source, or aren't we allowed to use offline references anymore?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Marc Lacoste who made that edit which added a host of maintenance tags, most of which have since been resolved. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I am guessing Marc Lacoste put those tags in because he wants to know if the claims stated by the Wikipedia text is actually in the sources. Since these sources are probably inaccessible, that is why these tags are there. - Josephua (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
indeed. BTW, the statement is not that important and could be left out of the article with minimal harm.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC) And same thing for the number ordered/built table: it could be spin out in a separate article (list of SSSJ100 orders and deliveries or something) with the litigious refs, leaving only a well referenced article.
@Josephua: The grammar issues are minor but numerous and I don't want this page to become too cluttered so i will refrain from putting the whole list here for now. Also there is no problem with the orders/delivery table being in the article. Featured articles like Boeing 757 also has it. 1.02 editor (T/C) 08:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I will not be able to start any reforms of the article. As the review was started in a time where I just started college, I thought I had the capability to help fix the article based on the review. Even so, I intend for the review to occur during the summer, in which I had time, but since I started college, I have homework assignments being stacked against me, so I will be unable to do anything that is of use. Sorry if I did anything of inconvenience. - Josephua (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've had a stab at copyediting the Background section, and will continue working through the article as time allows – though probably not within the 7-day "deadline" for this GA review. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I dont mind letting the review run for a while as long at it dosen't drag on for too long. 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: Whats the status of the article now? It has been quite a while since i last saw any activity on the page. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had time to do much copyediting beyond the Background section – but equally, that was the section that needed it the most. I can't make any promises as to how soon I'll have time to finish the rest. In the meantime, would you mind taking a fresh look at that section to give me an idea of whether I'm on the right track? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I will do another review of the section and let you know what needs to be done. However, I would suggest that I fail the article for now since there is much that needs to be done and since the you and the nominator cant really work on the article now. You can renominate the article when it is of better standard and if you do so please ping me and i will be happy to re-take up the review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 15:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I’m fine with that tbh. However, Rosbif, I will add, I also nominated the Airbus A350 for good article status five months ago (before I nominated the SSJ) and it is more developed than the SSJ100. I suggest instead of here, focus on the Airbus A350 in case of a possible review. Thank you so much for helping. - Josephua (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Josephua: Ok, If i have time i will try to take up the review but similar to you, my exams are also round the corner. Will close the review as a fail first. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Move this page to reflect the name change?

We now have multiple sources [9] [10] [11] [12] saying that the aircraft programme has been transferred to Irkut and that the Sukhoi name has been dropped. Is there consensus that these sources are reliable enough to justify moving the page to Superjet 100 (which is currently a redirect)? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if the sources indicate that the manufacturer has changed, that doesn't mean that we'll change the article's name right now. Wikipedia article titles are partly based on what is the most common name, not necessarily the most current one. A notable example is the F-16, which is still at General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, even though it's been owned by Lockheed Martin since 1993! Personally, I think it should be at Lockheed Martin now, but that's how Wikipedia works. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but why not dropping the name "Sukhoi" Superjet 100 in application Flightradar24, now name regional Aircraft is "Superjet 100"? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Right now there are 223,000 google results for "superjet 100" -sukhoi against 877,000 for "superjet 100" sukhoi, so, no. Maybe in few years. Also, please stop trying to push things without searching wikipedia's mechanisms.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, by consensus at WT:AIR/NC, aircraft articles on Wikipedia are generally titled "Manufacturer-Designation-Name". That's why "Sukhoi" is included. BilCat (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok i see the link:https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple115/v4/bd/03/6b/bd036bcf-79aa-6c3e-0a9b-a1f4291dccbf/pr_source.png/643x0w.png but logotype appeared the name “Superjet 100” dropping the name “Sukhoi” and symbol appear the logotype of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) BeirutMa2021 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Superjet 100 or “Sukhoi” Superjet 100

Why erased my edit, is not Sukhoi Superjet 100 its now Superjet 100 but merger between Irkut Corporation and Sukhoi Civil Aircraft? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just because companies change name we dont change the original name in articles unless there is a shift over time and I cant find any evidence of that. Note the "Superjet 100" has been the marketing name of the aircraft for a long time. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but on the UAC website the name of the “Superjet 100” appears on the products. BeirutMa2021 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The United Aircraft Corporation BeirutMa2021 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the evidence:https://www.aerotime.aero/22130-sukhoi-superjet-100-changes-hands-and-name BeirutMa2021 (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And the Sukhoi Civil Aircraft is become to the Regional Aircraft-Branch of the Irkut Corporation BeirutMa2021 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

“The Sukhoi Superjet 100 is dead, long live the Superjet 100!” BeirutMa2021 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it has always been the "Superjet 100" since 2005 (before it was the RRJ) so I dont know what the problem is. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This problem is why BilCat erased my edit on this information? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The User:Bilcat erased my edit ? BeirutMa2021 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Because you removed the name of the design bureau which has not changed, it also should reflect the name of the article which it does. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Look the logotype of the Superjet 100:[1] BeirutMa2021 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple115/v4/bd/03/6b/bd036bcf-79aa-6c3e-0a9b-a1f4291dccbf/pr_source.png/643x0w.png/ Logotype of the Superjet 100
No argument clearly called and marketed as the Superjet 100 but you still dont understand that it came from Sukhoi design bureau hence the title. Do you have a reliable source that Sukhoi did not design the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Before the change the name of the aircraft the reliable source is United Aircraft Corporation and Aerotime and after the February 2020 site web of SCAC (Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company) has acquired by Irkut Corporation and renamed "Regional Aircraft-Branch of the Irkut Corporation" in Aerotime. This is the change the name of the aircraft and the Company. BeirutMa2021 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope it cant change the original design bureau from the early 2000s. I understand the company has been taken over but the aircraft was still designed by the Sukhoi bureau. So unless there is a time machine involved Sukhoi is still correct. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the Sukhoi website and design office was transferred to Irkut Corporation in February 2020. BeirutMa2021 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The RRJ/SJ100 was designed in the 2000s nothing to do with websites. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks BeirutMa2021 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hull loss accidents

Under this heading there are claimed to have been three hull loss accidents, but FOUR are listed. ShropshirePilgrim (talk)

The Reykjavik incident wasn't a hull loss, the aircraft was repaired, afaik. The heading of the section is also "Accidents and incidents", not "hull losses". On the other hand, it is unclear. I might be good to change the first sentence to something like "four major accidents, of which three lead to hull losses" or so (I guess it would need to major, since I guess there were more not significant incidents or accidents).--91.125.192.46 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) exit, Superjet 100 no longer Russian product

Article needs an update now UAC (which held 90% of shares after merger between Sukhoi and UAC in 2022) has sold all its shares in SuperJet International, (the Italian division that markets and maintains the Superjet 100 outside Russia). New shareholding is 49% Markab Capital (United Arab Emirates), 41% Italian law firm Studio Guidotti International, 10% Leonardo. Production is planned to restart at Al Ain International Airport in Abu Dhabi with HQ and parts manufacturing in Venice. UAC will presumably be continuing to develop its replacement SSJ-New aircraft which reduces the proportion of foreign components from 60% to 20% as its been unable to continue to produce the SSJ-100 due to sanctions. WatcherZero (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100/Archive_2&oldid=1234302539"