Talk:Piper PA-46

message: I am concered with the specifications. They are old. I updated, but Ahunt switched them back to old one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick J P (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a question of old or new, Wikipedia aircraft type articles are essentially history articles and not a marketing tool for the manufacturer's latest model of aircraft. In this case you added some specs for the turbine PA-46-500TP to the existing specs for the piston model PA-46-310P all under the spec section title of "PA-46-310P Malibu", which resulted in confusion. The standards for these specs sections are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_specifications. If you think the specs should be changed from the PA-46-310P to the PA-46-500TP then put forward your reasons for wanting to do that and let's discuss it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of those changes, might it not be a good idea to split of the PA-46-500TP to its own page? There do seem to be enough major changes (engines, larger wing). - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be possible to split them, but it is worth considering that the FAA consider them all variants of one type on one type certificate. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but type certificates aren't the only factor to consider. Looking at the Piper site, they list the Meridian, Mirage, and Matrix separtely, without mentioning the Malibu name at at all. I think the Meridian is different enough, especially in specs, engine, and perfomance, that it could be covered better separately. It would probaly reguire a lot of writing, so I'm not necessarily suggesting it be done now. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be possible to split them, just because the FAA consider them one type doesn't mean we have to here. After all the Cessna 205 is on the Cessna 210 type certificate! In the meantime I am going to add the type certificate as a ref for this article, it will be useful whether they are split of not. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's fine. I see you're adding some pics too! I was looking at Commons, and saw a number of pics that could be added. i was suprised we only had one image, but that may have been the only one avalible when it was added. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was the only one a couple of years ago, when I last checked, but there are a few others now. I just lucked out that one was the JetPROP conversion! I'll have to check my own collection and see if I have any of the other variants as they are missing from Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I streamlined the page today, as I added an M-Class section.  Previously, the M350 and M500 were under the Malibu and Meridian sections respectively, yet Piper no longer uses those names.  They now refer to these aircraft as part of their M-Class.  I've made sure to add references for all the changes.  I've also updated the production data using figures from GAMA.  I'm in the process of tracking down all quarterly shipment information for the PA-46 from 1983 to 1999.  Once I have that info I will adjust this page as well as the Piper Aircraft page.  Cheers. - Nurbout12 (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piper PA-46  

message: Ok... What the heck. I made a full article on that plane but then it gets redirected to here. That plane deserves its own article. It has its own category on the Piper Airplane website. Are you kidding me?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiendYT (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very minor update to the PA-46, same engine, airframe and avionics. No reason to have separate article on that, we are not here to do Piper's marketing. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Ahunt on merging. FiendYT, your work was not in vain, as we didn't have any info yet on the M350 in the PA-46 article, so Ahunt used the information you had researched to improve this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so your contributions are useful. Thanks getting the process started. - BilCat (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Same here. It is just a rebadged uplift to the same old basic airplane. Adding the new information into the existing product line article is the correct way to go, and I will add my own thanks for providing it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piper P350 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Piper PA-46. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807193838/https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf to https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I noticed this recent blog exchange at aviation.stackexchange.com. Any further information and/or better sources would be welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If we need to make some statement about this it can be sourced to the particular country's air regs (ie for Canada it would be CAR 605.33), but in general we don't say what an aircraft doesn't have, unless it is to address a specific issue. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash is concerned, I'm sure the AAIB interim report, promised within 2 weeks, will clarify. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the board report on the accident it will usually state something like, "the aircraft was not equipped with a FDR or CVR and was not required by the regulations to be so equipped", or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No [[Flight data recorder|FDR]] or [[Flight recorder#Cockpit voice recorder|CVR]]?