Talk:FFA P-16

message: 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)
replies: text: There are many many books and articles that say the same thing in English as well, which is apparently why Lear's son said what he did, because it has become "common knowledge" that the Lear was based on the P-16, But William Lear Jr. says the "common knowledge" is wrong, and he explains why it's wrong. The advertising drawing is completely irrelevant; Beechcraft built and displayed a mockup of its King Air with Turbomeca Bastan engines, but it came out with PT6s. Early drawings for the Boeing 747 showed two full passenger decks, not just a hump. Things change. YSSYguy (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Oh well, your friend who worked at FFA must know more about it than Bill Lear's son. Just repeating, the only similarity is the eight-spar structure. The airfoils are different, the sweep angles are different, the flaps are different, the leading edges are different. The eight spars may have inspired Bill Lear when he designed the Lear 23's wing, just as the Sabreliner may have inspired him to use two rear-mounted engines or the Lockheed Starfighter inspired him to use a T-tail. Ideas are borrowed all the time, which is not to say that one thing is based on another, otherwise it could be said that the Vickers Wellington bomber was based on the R100 airship. YSSYguy (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

text: See FFA SAAC-23  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Similarities" to the Learjet 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for raising it, I have corrected the date to the 31 August. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maiden flight and crash reall in the same day? 

message: 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.</br>After checking the source I can assure: Not even the trainer version (that Bridel mentions for 1961) is mentioned in Buttlers book at all.</br>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)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess he takes a vacation in England every 2 years, and uses the opportunity to pretend to be a different person on a British IP. But, as usual, he gives himself away. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake ECM version 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion