Talk:Beechcraft Bonanza

message: I propose to merge Parastu 14 into Beechcraft Bonanza. I think that the content in the Parastu 14 article can easily be explained in the context of Beechcraft Bonanza, particularly as it is an un-licensed copy of the Bonanza. Petebutt (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually need sources that say the Parastu is a copy of the Bonanza - the current references don't seen to state this - with the closest being that it is a "look alike" by globalsecurity.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Nigel Ish; globalsecurity is ambiguous about the actual similarities of the aircraft, other English-language sources on Google are unreadable without a subscription, and I distrust online translations of technical content in foreign languages that I'm unfamiliar with. Can anyone out there access additional English-language sources and/or read Farsi well enough to verify what the Iranian sources say? Carguychris (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research using the very few images of Iranian Bonanzas the Parastu just looks like the original aircraft with some new paint and sometimes wingtips but I cant find any reliable sources to back that up. It is doubtful they are new aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You could look at it from the other side and posit that there are no reliable sources that state it is not a copy and is an original aircraft!--06:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If no reliable sources (not Iranian! Nothing they say can be trusted!) are forthcoming, then the merge should go ahead. No reason why a stand-alone article can't be resurrected if it does prove to be an original design!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced common sense indicates they are not new aircraft like a lot of Iranian designs they have just improved the aircraft they already have. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem with the accessable Iranian sources is that, as far as I can tell using Google Translate, they don't say anything about any relationship with the Bonanza either, and they appear to be general news sources so we couldn't put great trust in them for technical facts (even if we ignore general issues with Iranian sources) - we have no decent sourcing that gives a direct relationship (either existing Bonanzas with a new coat of paint or some sort of copy or rebuild). It may be helpful is someone can get a sight of what the latest editions of sources like Jane's All the World's Aircraft say, because currently we have very little to base an article or a merge on.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Closing', given that the proposal remains contested and the discussion is stale. Klbrain (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal Comment Suggestion 

message: Subsequent analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident records between 1962 and 2007 revealed an average of three V-tail structural failures per year, while the conventional-tailed Bonanza 33 and 36 suffered only eleven such failures during the same time period.
Does this actually mean anything? Were the Model 33 and Model 35 built in the same numbers? I assumed the V-tail was far more common than the conventional tail. The total numbers of aircraft effected doesn't matter, it is the number effected proportional to the units built. The numbers suggest that the V-tail does in fact have a higher proportional failure rate, but one shouldn't assume such things. Perhaps V tails were built in the thousands, and Model 33s in the dozens. It is like saying that "last year there were 10,000 engine failures by Toyota Corollas, but only 150 engine failures among Alfa Romeos, therefore the Toyota Corolla is less reliable than an Alfa". There are also many, many times as many Corollas in existence.
64.222.152.192 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failures 

message: Does anyone else notice the similarities between the Bonanza's wing and the famed P-51's wings? Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the "kink" in the Bonanza's wing does vaguely resemble that of the P-51D/K, but it's almost definitely not worth noting in the article.  I have not seen any reliable sources (or even unreliable sources for that matter) that state that the Bonanza was even partially inspired by the P-51 or any other military aircraft.  The shape of the wing was most likely a practical decision, making the visual similarities nothing more than a coincidence. - ZLEA T\C 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth (probably not much), there are numerous "Used Aircraft Guide"-type articles from general aviation-oriented sources that liken the Bonanza to a WWII fighter, but when I've read them closely, the likeness is always cosmetic and not aerodynamic (and is usually discussed in the context of how the Bonanza made late 40s Pipers, Stinsons and Cessnas look stodgy and outdated by comparison). I don't think these subjective comparisons add much to an encyclopedic source. I have yet to see a reliable source saying that Beechcraft designers deliberately used any specific aerodynamic features from a WWII aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are going to make a comparison between the P-51 and post war light aircraft, then the North American/Ryan etc Navion is probably more relevant - sources do seem to make the connection between the two.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonanza Wings