![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bill Lear's son has thoroughly debunked the "well-known fact" that the Learjet 23 is based on the P-16 in this article. The only thing the P-16 has in common with the 23 is that they both have eight spars in the wing; one might as well say that the Learjet 23 is based on the Rockwell Sabreliner because they both have rear-mounted engines. YSSYguy ( talk) 13:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well dis stays in the oposide to other sources:
FFA P-16 ( talk) 12:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is one thing that something can become as "common knowledge" if its in books written by people who were not involved in it. But here we have a few people who worked themselv with this (C.Caroni,W.Dürig and G.Bridel) who especali Claudio Caroni (CEO of FFA and leader of the SAAC project from the swiss side)who clearly say that the SAAC-23/ Learjet-23 wing's are based on the P-16. But if we have on one side one Person who was Testpilot for the Learjet-23, who was flying the P-16 a few times but is not an aircraft desinger, who say all the books (even that one from the Swiss Traffic Museeum , and the Dokument Service of the Swiss Air Force)and movies are wrong, I have some doubt's. One one side we have this one man saying this on the other side we have 3 other persons,some of them aircraft desingers who clearly say the Learjets wing is based on the P-16. Sorry but this, in my eyes, beats clearly in quantety and qualety.No one says it is a 1to 1 copy of the P-16 wing, but it is based on the P-16 wing. Also a friend who worked at this time at FFA confirmed me this. FFA P-16 ( talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not that what my frind says who give the the weight of this, he confirmt to me just that what such people said and have written who realy were involved in the P-16 and the SAAC-23 project. Sorry but the CEO of the FFA Claudio Caroni is a person who realy knew what he says about this he was direct involved in this 2 Aircraftprojects he and the other guys I named before are for me much more crdible (not to forget the Swiss Air Force Document Department an the Swiss Traffic Museum) than a intervie of Bill Lears son, who him selves was not part of the construction team not of the P-16 not of the SAAC/ LJ-23. This people are not so silly that the say the wing is based on the P-16's just because it looks the same. They realy knew what they are talking because they workd on this, and it is documented. You have to hold in minde that at the beginning it was planed to build the SAAC-23 wing, landing gear. At FFA in Switzerland, ship them to the USA and complete there the Aircraft with the fuselage build in the USA. We have on one hand a Man who says he knews from his father, that all books,swiss goverments documents and statement of the FFA CEO is wrong? We are here not talking from "may have inspired" just because some thing on an aircraft looks simelar.I don't se why we have to change this just because 1 man say it is that way and we have on the other side a bunch of people anddocuments who say something differend. FFA P-16 ( talk) 07:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW i still have some scans from this newspapers (but they are in german), BTW the air Force Museum wit the FFA P-16 contains also a lot of informations wo say the same .. the LJ-23 wing is based on the P-16 wing, FFA P-16 ( talk) 07:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
In current version of article, there is stated:
On 25 April 1955, the first of these aircraft (J-3001) performed its maiden flight. This prototype was subsequently destroyed in a crash on 25 April <<year missing>> having conducted 22 flights with a cumulative flight time of 12 hours 38 minutes.
OK, did it really happend all during a single day? All those 22 flights and a finally a crash also? Or is there a typo in one of the dates?
Can somebody check this somewhere? I don't feel myself an expert on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klenot ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The (gobally blocked) user providing his model pictures to Wikipedia added a non existing "ECM" Version to the article. As a source he indicated
Buttler but without indicating a page. This is fake.
After checking the source I can assure: Not even the trainer version (that Bridel mentions for 1961) is mentioned in Buttlers book at all.
It doesn’t even make sense: Unlike a trainer version in an ECM aircraft there is absolutely no need to sit side by side. Everybody with basic aviation knowledge should know this. --
Caumasee (
talk) 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
As a source he now indicated
Felix H. Meier but without indicating a page. This is fake: There is a chapter "Weiterentwicklungen" (developments) mainly explaining engine options. An image (page 76) shows a design proposal "P-1605": This is a two seat all-weather interceptor (of course tandem and not side-by-side). It differs from the Bridel Figure 44a in having no rear view from the rear seat. So another proposal at least on paper.
No sign of side-by-side nor ECM.--
Caumasee (
talk) 22:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Checking Felix H. Meier's book brought some clarity about the ever lasting Copyvios on Commons:
Miraculously his copyright holder claim
changed at this picture – “corresponding” now to the copyright indicated in the book (Hanspeter Mettler). In the book
this picture is credited “copyright FFA”. The availability of these picutre is well known; prints were sold in a shop in Wigoltingen: Aviation Shop, Eggrainstr. 2, 8556 Wigoltingen
This leaves us with the following conclusion: Different pictures from different sources were declared as Kobel's own. Even worse:
This is clearly a professional photo with the number written into. The professional photographer is certainly not him – (being happy to upload
this quality). Whereever he received the pictures: He certainly isn’t the copyright holder on all black and white factory pictures of the ongoing program (7 of them left in the category). The others in Altenrhein are questionable. The ones at Dubendorf may or may not belong to him.--
Caumasee (
talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bill Lear's son has thoroughly debunked the "well-known fact" that the Learjet 23 is based on the P-16 in this article. The only thing the P-16 has in common with the 23 is that they both have eight spars in the wing; one might as well say that the Learjet 23 is based on the Rockwell Sabreliner because they both have rear-mounted engines. YSSYguy ( talk) 13:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well dis stays in the oposide to other sources:
FFA P-16 ( talk) 12:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is one thing that something can become as "common knowledge" if its in books written by people who were not involved in it. But here we have a few people who worked themselv with this (C.Caroni,W.Dürig and G.Bridel) who especali Claudio Caroni (CEO of FFA and leader of the SAAC project from the swiss side)who clearly say that the SAAC-23/ Learjet-23 wing's are based on the P-16. But if we have on one side one Person who was Testpilot for the Learjet-23, who was flying the P-16 a few times but is not an aircraft desinger, who say all the books (even that one from the Swiss Traffic Museeum , and the Dokument Service of the Swiss Air Force)and movies are wrong, I have some doubt's. One one side we have this one man saying this on the other side we have 3 other persons,some of them aircraft desingers who clearly say the Learjets wing is based on the P-16. Sorry but this, in my eyes, beats clearly in quantety and qualety.No one says it is a 1to 1 copy of the P-16 wing, but it is based on the P-16 wing. Also a friend who worked at this time at FFA confirmed me this. FFA P-16 ( talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not that what my frind says who give the the weight of this, he confirmt to me just that what such people said and have written who realy were involved in the P-16 and the SAAC-23 project. Sorry but the CEO of the FFA Claudio Caroni is a person who realy knew what he says about this he was direct involved in this 2 Aircraftprojects he and the other guys I named before are for me much more crdible (not to forget the Swiss Air Force Document Department an the Swiss Traffic Museum) than a intervie of Bill Lears son, who him selves was not part of the construction team not of the P-16 not of the SAAC/ LJ-23. This people are not so silly that the say the wing is based on the P-16's just because it looks the same. They realy knew what they are talking because they workd on this, and it is documented. You have to hold in minde that at the beginning it was planed to build the SAAC-23 wing, landing gear. At FFA in Switzerland, ship them to the USA and complete there the Aircraft with the fuselage build in the USA. We have on one hand a Man who says he knews from his father, that all books,swiss goverments documents and statement of the FFA CEO is wrong? We are here not talking from "may have inspired" just because some thing on an aircraft looks simelar.I don't se why we have to change this just because 1 man say it is that way and we have on the other side a bunch of people anddocuments who say something differend. FFA P-16 ( talk) 07:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW i still have some scans from this newspapers (but they are in german), BTW the air Force Museum wit the FFA P-16 contains also a lot of informations wo say the same .. the LJ-23 wing is based on the P-16 wing, FFA P-16 ( talk) 07:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
In current version of article, there is stated:
On 25 April 1955, the first of these aircraft (J-3001) performed its maiden flight. This prototype was subsequently destroyed in a crash on 25 April <<year missing>> having conducted 22 flights with a cumulative flight time of 12 hours 38 minutes.
OK, did it really happend all during a single day? All those 22 flights and a finally a crash also? Or is there a typo in one of the dates?
Can somebody check this somewhere? I don't feel myself an expert on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klenot ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The (gobally blocked) user providing his model pictures to Wikipedia added a non existing "ECM" Version to the article. As a source he indicated
Buttler but without indicating a page. This is fake.
After checking the source I can assure: Not even the trainer version (that Bridel mentions for 1961) is mentioned in Buttlers book at all.
It doesn’t even make sense: Unlike a trainer version in an ECM aircraft there is absolutely no need to sit side by side. Everybody with basic aviation knowledge should know this. --
Caumasee (
talk) 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
As a source he now indicated
Felix H. Meier but without indicating a page. This is fake: There is a chapter "Weiterentwicklungen" (developments) mainly explaining engine options. An image (page 76) shows a design proposal "P-1605": This is a two seat all-weather interceptor (of course tandem and not side-by-side). It differs from the Bridel Figure 44a in having no rear view from the rear seat. So another proposal at least on paper.
No sign of side-by-side nor ECM.--
Caumasee (
talk) 22:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Checking Felix H. Meier's book brought some clarity about the ever lasting Copyvios on Commons:
Miraculously his copyright holder claim
changed at this picture – “corresponding” now to the copyright indicated in the book (Hanspeter Mettler). In the book
this picture is credited “copyright FFA”. The availability of these picutre is well known; prints were sold in a shop in Wigoltingen: Aviation Shop, Eggrainstr. 2, 8556 Wigoltingen
This leaves us with the following conclusion: Different pictures from different sources were declared as Kobel's own. Even worse:
This is clearly a professional photo with the number written into. The professional photographer is certainly not him – (being happy to upload
this quality). Whereever he received the pictures: He certainly isn’t the copyright holder on all black and white factory pictures of the ongoing program (7 of them left in the category). The others in Altenrhein are questionable. The ones at Dubendorf may or may not belong to him.--
Caumasee (
talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)