![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This article says: "A total of 104 model 23's were built. In 1998 there were still 39 LJ23's in use. Only 26 LJ23's have been lost through accidents." Do I understand correctly that 26 airplanes have been lost through accidents, on a total of 104? And the article says "Only"? If the number is correct (I did not verify), then, at least, the word "Only" should be removed. If someone has verifiable informations on why this number is so high, this would be an interesting addition. -- Francois Beaune
I won't edit the article because I can't find what I consider an authoritative reference but having looked at the specs on any number of modern light jets with far more efficient engines, the stated range of 2,549 mi is simply not feasible. Some example references:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/learjet23.html : 1650 miles
http://www.consumer-guides.info/private_jets/index.html : 1875 miles
http://www.pimaair.org/Acftdatapics/LEARJET%20MOL%2023.htm : 1830 miles
UweRoss 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a math error in converting miles to kilometres, stated in section "Performance", line "Range" - as kilometer is shorter than mile (any mile, nautical or otherwise) the number of kilometres should always be higher than number of miles for given distance (range).
I won't edit this article myself - I'm not quite sure what the convertion ratio is, and I don't want to edit the text with data I'm not sure about. Besides, another reader of this article pointed out that this range seems to be unreasticaly high, so I think this issue should be clarified first - and only then the number of kilometres vs miles should be addressed.
85.221.205.250 ( talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the merger of SAAC-23 into Learjet 23. The SAAC-23 never came any further than the design table/project study. However, the study laid some of the ground works for the Learjet 23. The Banner talk 12:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The SAAC-23 differend to the later Learjet 23. That it was "only" a project study is no reason, we have a lot articel about aircraft studis.. XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707,.. FFA P-16 ( talk) 14:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
A Merge is also not usual in this case... see Northrop YF-17 who is not merged with McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. FFA P-16 ( talk) 17:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Move to Draftspace or Delete - While I see room for an article on the prototype study,
this piece of incoherent, unintelligible garbage isn't it. Nothing really worth merging. While I understand that FFA P-16 means well, his competence in English is far too poor to allow tripe such as this to pollute mainspace. I'd have sent it to AFD, but those aren't supposed to run concurrently with other discussions. -
BilCat (
talk)
09:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge A precis of this article merged to Learjet 23 would probably be the best solution.-- Petebutt ( talk) 10:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this sockpuppet has reared his ugly head again. Almost identical content with the same poor use of English, with mostly non relevant content.-- Petebutt ( talk) 03:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC) @ MilborneOne: he's back, again already Petebutt ( talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 14:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This article says: "A total of 104 model 23's were built. In 1998 there were still 39 LJ23's in use. Only 26 LJ23's have been lost through accidents." Do I understand correctly that 26 airplanes have been lost through accidents, on a total of 104? And the article says "Only"? If the number is correct (I did not verify), then, at least, the word "Only" should be removed. If someone has verifiable informations on why this number is so high, this would be an interesting addition. -- Francois Beaune
I won't edit the article because I can't find what I consider an authoritative reference but having looked at the specs on any number of modern light jets with far more efficient engines, the stated range of 2,549 mi is simply not feasible. Some example references:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/learjet23.html : 1650 miles
http://www.consumer-guides.info/private_jets/index.html : 1875 miles
http://www.pimaair.org/Acftdatapics/LEARJET%20MOL%2023.htm : 1830 miles
UweRoss 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a math error in converting miles to kilometres, stated in section "Performance", line "Range" - as kilometer is shorter than mile (any mile, nautical or otherwise) the number of kilometres should always be higher than number of miles for given distance (range).
I won't edit this article myself - I'm not quite sure what the convertion ratio is, and I don't want to edit the text with data I'm not sure about. Besides, another reader of this article pointed out that this range seems to be unreasticaly high, so I think this issue should be clarified first - and only then the number of kilometres vs miles should be addressed.
85.221.205.250 ( talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the merger of SAAC-23 into Learjet 23. The SAAC-23 never came any further than the design table/project study. However, the study laid some of the ground works for the Learjet 23. The Banner talk 12:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The SAAC-23 differend to the later Learjet 23. That it was "only" a project study is no reason, we have a lot articel about aircraft studis.. XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707,.. FFA P-16 ( talk) 14:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
A Merge is also not usual in this case... see Northrop YF-17 who is not merged with McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. FFA P-16 ( talk) 17:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Move to Draftspace or Delete - While I see room for an article on the prototype study,
this piece of incoherent, unintelligible garbage isn't it. Nothing really worth merging. While I understand that FFA P-16 means well, his competence in English is far too poor to allow tripe such as this to pollute mainspace. I'd have sent it to AFD, but those aren't supposed to run concurrently with other discussions. -
BilCat (
talk)
09:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge A precis of this article merged to Learjet 23 would probably be the best solution.-- Petebutt ( talk) 10:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this sockpuppet has reared his ugly head again. Almost identical content with the same poor use of English, with mostly non relevant content.-- Petebutt ( talk) 03:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC) @ MilborneOne: he's back, again already Petebutt ( talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 14:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)