This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is about a proposed aircraft built by an unknown company and designed by an un-named designer. Furthermore there are no third party refs, just refs from the company itself. This doesn't meet WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) at all. Unless some third party refs can be added this should really be sent to WP:AFD. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I note the adjective "advanced" has been deleted as WP:PEACOCK. Given that it is a kitplane, a class which includes ultra-basic aircraft which might have been designed 100 years ago, I reckon "advanced" is a correct description. Let's call a spade a spade; a Swift rather than a Peacock! Arrivisto ( talk) 11:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
A major source of information on the design of the Raptor and on its testing programme is the series of regular YouTube Vlogs by Peter Muller, the designer and (pro tem) test pilot. Is there any way that Wikipedia can accept reference to these as sources? Arrivisto ( talk) 15:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor entered that the prototype was crashed on its first flight today. I removed it, as I could not find any refs at all on it, even on the aviation media sites or NTSB. That said something does seem to have happened on a first flight attempt, was sort of caught on the control tower video and is being discussed on aviation forums (which are not WP:RS, of course). I am hoping the aviation media or some news outlet will report the story so it can be added back into the article. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I just removed the claim that the cost of developing the aircraft were being funded by the buyer's deposits held in escrow. I removed it for two reasons: 1. because even the archived company web page does not say that and 2. it does not make any logical sense. Money in escrow is held by a third party and cannot be used. The aircraft developer has no access to it, which is the point. We actually have no information on how the developer is funding development, but if anyone can locate that information it would be a useful addition to the article. - Ahunt ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The aircraft prototype still exists, even though it has been damaged, so it is still referred to in the present tense. The development has ended, so the goals and plans are referred to in past tense. If the aircraft prototype is scrapped or cannibalized for parts for a future design then the tense referring to the aircraft can be changed to "past". If it is rebuilt or turning into a museum display it will stay as "present", since it still exists. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is about a proposed aircraft built by an unknown company and designed by an un-named designer. Furthermore there are no third party refs, just refs from the company itself. This doesn't meet WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) at all. Unless some third party refs can be added this should really be sent to WP:AFD. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I note the adjective "advanced" has been deleted as WP:PEACOCK. Given that it is a kitplane, a class which includes ultra-basic aircraft which might have been designed 100 years ago, I reckon "advanced" is a correct description. Let's call a spade a spade; a Swift rather than a Peacock! Arrivisto ( talk) 11:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
A major source of information on the design of the Raptor and on its testing programme is the series of regular YouTube Vlogs by Peter Muller, the designer and (pro tem) test pilot. Is there any way that Wikipedia can accept reference to these as sources? Arrivisto ( talk) 15:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor entered that the prototype was crashed on its first flight today. I removed it, as I could not find any refs at all on it, even on the aviation media sites or NTSB. That said something does seem to have happened on a first flight attempt, was sort of caught on the control tower video and is being discussed on aviation forums (which are not WP:RS, of course). I am hoping the aviation media or some news outlet will report the story so it can be added back into the article. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I just removed the claim that the cost of developing the aircraft were being funded by the buyer's deposits held in escrow. I removed it for two reasons: 1. because even the archived company web page does not say that and 2. it does not make any logical sense. Money in escrow is held by a third party and cannot be used. The aircraft developer has no access to it, which is the point. We actually have no information on how the developer is funding development, but if anyone can locate that information it would be a useful addition to the article. - Ahunt ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The aircraft prototype still exists, even though it has been damaged, so it is still referred to in the present tense. The development has ended, so the goals and plans are referred to in past tense. If the aircraft prototype is scrapped or cannibalized for parts for a future design then the tense referring to the aircraft can be changed to "past". If it is rebuilt or turning into a museum display it will stay as "present", since it still exists. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)