Jump to content

Talk:Very light jet

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


Aircraft list

[edit]

Aircraft list should probably be a wikitable. Dbchip 17:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now! Vivaldi (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D-Jet information

[edit]

The following was put by User:208.235.233.194 onto the article page, but belongs here in the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond D-Jet price is old. Here is oshkosh quote.
Diamond D-Jet VLJ debuts at AirVenture
By David Sakrison
The D-Jet flies by the AirVenture crowd. Photo by Phil Weston
The Diamond D-Jet made its world debut Wednesday morning at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, just 10 days after it was unveiled at Diamond headquarters in London, Ontario. Since then, the prototype has flown about 30 hours.
Diamond says the five-place single-engine VLJ (very light jet) should be on the market in mid-2008, priced at $1.38 million. Diamond CEO Christian Dries said the D-Jet is designed to be flown by a pilot/owner, and will offer safety, comfort, and efficiency.
[edit]

I’ve created ALL External Links in this article and the link to the AirTaxiFlights.com site here is no more inappropriate or a spam than links here to AW&ST, AIN or Flight Int’l sites. (Actually, contrary to those other sites, the AirTaxiFlights.com site contains no ads or some other commercial stuff). The link was here for over a month (Jun. 24 – Aug. 30) without anyone complaining, until Dbchip suddenly decided that it’s a spam and removed it.

For all you wannabe censors/policemen out there I suggest that it would be better if you contribute something of your own before you start censoring and deleting what someone else has done just because you personally don’t like it or think it’s inappropriate for others. And if you really believe it’s inappropriate, maybe you ought to start a discussion and give your reasons first, before arbitrarily deleting something for all the rest of us. 195.142.137.65 10:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, perhaps you ought to explain what's relevant about it. It sure looks like a violation of Wikipedia's policy on external links to me.--chris.lawson 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, airtaxiflights.com is operated by Creative NetVentures, Inc. [1], which is obviously nothing more than a commercial promotion company specialising in link farms. Surely there are sites out there that provide the same information (and at a higher quality -- airtaxiflights.com is a great example of bad spelling and grammar) without being so spammy.--chris.lawson 15:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirTaxiFlights.com has the best news archive related to VLJs that I found on the web, produces its own articles on the subject the same as other magazines with external links here, and has had a good VLJ Specifications and Comparison table even before it was created here. And while this article will continue to be censored by bigots who contribute nothing of their own except a witch-hunt after self-perceived linkspams, reverting contributions of others, AirTaxiFlight.com will be a much better source of intelligence about VLJs than wikipedia. Bxb 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using words like "bigots" to refer to other editors is not appropriate. (see WP:NPA). Perhaps this site might be an appropriate EL for an article about the air taxi service in general, but I don't think it is worth of inclusion here on the VLJ page. Why are you so insistent on the link being included? If you have a financial interest in the company running the site then it probably isn't a good idea for you to be adding this link yourself. If consensus determines this EL is a definitive and important resource on the topic of VLJs, then it will be added. Vivaldi (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order in table

[edit]

I'm going to propose that we formalize this:

The order of aircraft in the table shall be by the date, or expected or proposed or announced date, of type certification by the FAA or other recognized aviation regulation agency. For purposes of this table, all type certifications are treated as equal, whether they are limited or unlimited.

Does this sound reasonable? Georgewilliamherbert 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new section for delivered aircraft. The order will be date of delivery to the customer. This is to distinguish from aircraft that may or may not ever actually deliver a copy to a customer. Vivaldi (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full certification schedule?

[edit]

The article says "Full certification is expected by mid-September, 2006". It's November now, what happened?

For which aircraft? The Eclipse got it on 30 Sept.--chris.lawson 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orders

[edit]

Can we delete orders that cannot be confirmed? Like this ATG plane. I cant find an article that says 100 sold.--Bangabalunga 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if it's not cited or citable, it shouldn't be here.--chris.lawson 03:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a cite for the claim. Vivaldi (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit. Paragraph is not global enough. There are far more than only "three manufacturers". Please do also consider european ones, e.g. Diamond Aircraft. Jet.Bradley, 27th Sep. 2007, 11:50 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.31.211 (talk)

Missing Aircraft

[edit]

There's at least one notable aircraft that should be listed that isnt: the Chichester-Miles Leopard (CMC Leopard), particularly noteable since it was pretty much the first VLJ with a prototype actually flying (back in the early eighties). Unfortunately, I've not seen any verbose information on its current status anywhere, if anyone sees something vaguely canon it'd be worth sticking in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadbox (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

CMC had to upgrade its design (to Leopard Six) to accommodate a larger engine, since the engine they were waiting to use became unavailable when turbofan manufacturer Williams signed an exclusive use agreement with Eclipse for the smaller engine. CMC has been unable to come up with the $100 million plus needed to start on production.[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vivaldi (talk • contribs) 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removing "Dormant or cancelled projects"

[edit]

The list of three VLJs is fairly pointless as there is no detailed credible information available (that can be backed up by actual tests/certifications/etc); it isn't even clear how far these projects went, if a couple of computer renderings and speculative technical claims is all they managed to do. The focal point should be a comprehensive overview of actual planes, not possible designs. In my opinion they should be taken out of the table and briefly mentioned somewhere in the text or any other suitable form or removed altogether. Agentbla 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the information in the table than broken out into the text, although it isn't all that important no matter what we decide to do. There's only 3 planes there now and for those doing research into VLJs development history it might be helpful to see some of these failed or dormant entries. Vivaldi (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet talk

[edit]

Well, umm, interesting trivia. But does the article really need 300 words and an entire section dedicated to a single design criteria: the presence or absence of a toilet, and whether it is (or should be) standard or optional? (That's about one-quarter of the entire article.) Really? N2e (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can tell from the refs cited (NY Times and Charter X News) that this is a serious subject and it has had an impact on aircraft designs and certainly sales. I think it should be mentioned, but perhaps the text could be shortened to reduce emphasis and the appearance of it being a trivial subject. - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No toilet could be a very nasty surprise for an air traveler. This seems quite important to me. 76.223.247.99 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

[edit]

Have just done a pretty extensive trimming. I'm not an expert in this area, but think that the result gives a more tightly focused article that can be built on as required. Snori (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to improve the content

[edit]

Hello, Please suggest me, how i will delete some content of "Very Light Jet" page, because when i was read the content of the page, some thing was strike on my mind that "Very Light Jet" or "VLJ" abbreviation is a standard and it is widely used.so it is not used in aviation industry also i am given some link which approve my point for example, ("http://www.azzurajetcharters.com/category/very-light-business-jet-charter", "http://www.ellejet.com/tools.php (industry leader", "http://www.pinterest.com/charterflightgp/charter-a-very-light-jet-vlj/", "http://www.corporatecharters.ca/aircraft/very-light-jets-light-jets/),

that's why i delete it,

Now inform me how i delete following content,available in introduction part of very light jet page. "In December 2010, AvWeb's Paul Bertorelli explained that the term very light jet is not used in the aviation industry anymore, "personal jet is the description du jour. You don't hear the term VLJ—very light jet--much anymore and some people in the industry tell me they think it's because that term was too tightly coupled to Eclipse, a failure that the remaining players want to, understandably, distance themselves from."[2]". thanks & regard Ian joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianjoy8311 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a couple of websites like Pinterest that still use the old term doesn't render a published opinion by an established expert like Paul Bertorelli wrong. The actual article text says "In December 2010, AvWeb's Paul Bertorelli explained that the term very light jet has lost favor in the aviation industry", which is consistent with finding a couple of marginal sources that still use the term. To remove this you need to do more than cite a couple of margin primary sources, you need to cite an expert who say this expert is wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Very light jet. 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) 21:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deliveries table

[edit]

Would anyone have an issue with adding a "Totals" row to the bottom of the table to show the total VLJs delivered each year? Sario528 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be okay. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ViperJet production

[edit]

I've added a citation tag to the cryptic "kits not produced" note for the ViperJet. I suspect that the note may be worded misleadingly, as ViperJet kits have been produced, while the wording implies they have not. On the other hand, if the note is meant to say that kits are out of production (which needs a citation), shouldn't the aircraft be in the Dormant category? Granted, this is a kitbuilt aircraft apparently notorious for poor factory documentation, so there are presumably a number of uncompleted kits around. Carguychris (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the whole statement, as I think it is just old and out-of-date. The FAA registry shows seven completed and registered, so it is hard to argue that "kits have not been produced". - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Let's wait and see if anyone updates it. Carguychris (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MTOW limit for Very Light Jet

[edit]

I recently came across this article and found to my surprise that the limit to qualify as a Very Light Jet was just 10,000 lbs instead of the very significant regulatory threshold of 12,500 lbs (~5700 kg), which is close, yet a vastly more relevant weight cut-off from a buyer's, airport's and pilot's point of view. From my experience, any aircraft under 12,500 lbs generally has much lower airport fees, less strict rules on type ratings etc., all of which results in a less bureaucratic/formal/expensive aircraft operation, which is a large part of the selling point of a "personal jet", as they describe it in a previous paragraph in the article.

Do you think if would be appropriate to raise the weight limit? On a side note, what source originally instituted or arbitrarily set the limit at 10,000 lbs?

Cheers --TheSkalman (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are clearly available : [2] Burns & McDonnell. 2005. (an "engineering, architecture, construction, environmental and consulting solutions firm") + [3] Popular Mechanics 2007 + [4] undated GlobalSecurity.org (reliability uncertain, imho). Nonetheless, I also think this 10k lbs limit is marketing only and should be dropped. It is dated from before the introduction of most jets presented. I never saw it in reliable aviation media. It is not defined by regulations. Almost half of the delivered jets in the page are above this limit. They are just lighter than usual light business jets. Time for it to go.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Very_light_jet&oldid=1205921017"