Talk:Piper PA-32R

message: I've started adding more historical detail on the PA-32R models.  I have some of the information manuals but not all, will put in more detail when I can cite it accurately.  This page could be merged with the PA-32 if desired.  Title of the page should probably be changed to "Piper PA-32R Lance/Saratoga" if it's left as a separate page.  Not all PA-32R's are Saratogas, and not all Saratogas are PA-32R's.  As it is right now, this is a PA-32R page, not a Saratoga page.--Seanfranklin (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Detail

message: I've renamed the "Accidents" section to "JFK Jr. Accident" and removed the (repeated) note of a Scottish Saratoga accident.  JFK's crash was a notable event involving the Saratoga.  There have been many (dozens if not hundreds) of Saratoga accidents, but in order to be considered "notable" an accident would either involve concerns about the airplane's safety in general (e.g. early Malibu engine failures), or would be notable because of who was involved (in the case of JFK Jr.).  Situations like the recent engine failure of a Saratoga resulting in a landing on I-70 near Indianapolis, or the Saratoga that survived a collision with a Cessna and landed successfully in New York last year, are "notable" to those of us who fly Saratogas but are not appropriate for this type of reference work - they are not "universally notable".  Wikipedia's guidance on such things is subject to broad interpretation, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a listing of every known accident of the Saratoga is beyond the scope of what this article should represent.Seanfranklin (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean: I agree totally with what you have said here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents

message: I would think that *any* midair collision is of sufficient notability, regardless of what the guideline says. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus derived guideline on what accidents to include is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents. The problem is one of volume and type-relevance. If you research PA-32 accidents you will probably find there have been dozens of mid-airs since it first flew. If you take a more common aircraft, like the Cessna 172, then there have been hundreds over the years. One of the main arguments that was made by project members against including these sorts of things is that the accident could have involved any light aircraft type, there is nothing about this mid-air that points to anything specific about deficiencies in this aircraft type, such as poor visibility, etc. So cataloging hundreds of accidents won't tell you anything about this type, its accident rate is about the same as other light aircraft and particular accident could have involved any type. That is why the guideline says what it does. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally there is a discussion about this issue going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision. You may want to participate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes that was the intent of the guideline - that the people be notable outside the circumstances of the crash. Essentially accidents like this are nothing different than car accidents - we don't have articles on every car accident or biographies on the victims. I do agree on the Michael Connell accident - it meets the guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. Connell's crash isn't notable because of the circumstances, it's notable because HE was notable for reasons other than the crash (same as JFK Jr.) Seanfranklin (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Midair collisions

message: Regarding the 1997 model changes, the article states "Externally the biggest difference was the new LoPresti-designed cowl, with much smaller, round air inlets."  I owned a 2000 model, and spoke to the folks at the LoPresti booth at Oshkosh a couple of years ago - I was told that they did NOT design the cowl, but rather Piper "copied" the design of the LoPresti aftermarket "Howl Cowl" for the earlier PA32's.  They said that Piper ultimately settled with them (LoPresti) and paid a royalty for each new Saratoga sold.
Since this would constitue WP:OR I don't want to add this information to the article on the basis of that conversation; I have not been able to corroborate it with any published information.  However I am removing the words "LoPresti-designed" because I believe that is incorrect, and the citations in the article do not support the statement.
If anyone can find a citation to support the information above, I think it would be worth adding to the article.Seanfranklin (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  LoPresti designed cowl on 1997+?