Talk:Learjet 35

message: I'm including the NH crash mainly because it caused such a long search effort, and went undiscovered for so long (Since that state is about as big as the county I live in, I find that hard to get my brain around, but then again, we don't have trees here in the Mojave desert), and because it directly led to the change in ELT requirements. In researching the incident, much of the info is preserved on the net by the UFO groupies, so I included that (with head shaking) because while it is absurd, the incident certainly  caused a stir in that community, and so I thought that, from a cultural-impact perspective, it should be met. However, I shan't be too miffed if other editors shake their head with equal vigor and decide that such material really doesn't belong here. Akradecki 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the whole, I'm OK with it,  having not heard of it before. One concern of mine is the length of that and the Stewart section. However, as I don't see links to articles on the incidents (I assume there aren't any), that's probably unavoidable. Also, the terms "dense forest" and "densely forested" appear in succeeding sentences in the middle of the NH paragraph. I wans't sure which one to take out to have the best reading, so I left it alone. If this is too critical, please let me know. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too critical? Heck, no. It's much appreciated. I know you and Joseph and I butt heads sometimes, but overall, I'm quite pleased with the way the team effort goes. Akradecki 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After thinking on your point on the length of the incidents, I'm wondering if at least the NH incident shouldn't be split off into its own article. I just re-read the detailed NTSB report, and there's a whole bunch of factors in this accident, aside from the ELT policy impact and the rather amusing UFO stuff. Seems the crew was all screwed up on the ILS, and just continued to misjudge where they were, attibuting it to ground equipment failure. Definitely some lessons to be learned from the incident. So, what does everyone think...leave as is or split off and summarize here? Suggestions for new article name? Akradecki 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the incident is notable enough for an articleof it's own, especially if you have that much more info. As for a title, I'm not familar enough with aircraft incident articles to know if there's a convention. That said, how does Learjet crash in New Hampshire sound? - BillCJ 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the NH incident should be split off. Also, I think we should trim the Payne Stewart incident -- in many other "Accidents and incidents sections" for various aircraft and airlines, the goal is to be brief if there is another article that could hold more detail (eg. the Payne Stewart article.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished creating an article called 1996 New Hampshire Learjet crash. Name was created after finding this discussion which references disaster naming conventions. Will also work on the Stewart entry, trimming it. Bill and Joseph, your input/cleanup of the crash article is, of course, invited. Akradecki 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, how does the Stewart entry sound now? Akradecki 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks. It tells just enough information...no point in telling the story in detail twice. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Hampshire incident

message: I'm also wondering if the Stewart incident should become its own article. In the last 10 years, the NTSB has only done 35 "major" investigations, and this was one of them, which makes it quite notable, in my view. The NTSB has tons of info, and there's a lot of "lessons learned" material, as well. Thoughts? Akradecki 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I do remember this incident, and it is definitely notable enough to have its own article. I took a quick look at the stewart article, and there is some detail there too. It might be best to coordinate with that article's editors on this too, since it is relevant to that page. - BillCJ 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point...I've posted to the Payne talk page. Akradecki 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started building the article at User:Akradecki/Sandbox if anyone wants to follow the progress or do a progressive copyedit. Akradecki 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done and up at 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash, along with a note of explanation on the talk page. It could probably use a good copyedit, if anyone wants to jump in. Akradecki 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stewart crash

message: I changed my mind, you all want a crummy article not readable by a general audience, you can keep it.  But when you bring airplane articles up for FAC and they get trounced because they're all written like this, don't ask why--jargon laden, unreadable lists of specs are not articles about airplanes, they're brochures or spec sheets.  That's apparently what Wiki project airplane wants and will badger attack and mock anyone in order to keep.  KP Botany 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been holding off saying this since your first "jargon" reference, but will say it now, using an example: you criticized the word "turbofan" as jargon. Don't you realize that this is the purpose of wikilinks, those blue words? It's so that the correct term can be used (yes, turbofan and not "jet" is the correct term) and still provide the reader who doesn't know what the word is a means of learning more. I'm disappointed in how you've reacted. You have a lot to offer, but instead of actually doing the work, all you do is try to tell others how to do it. I'll reiterate what I said much earlier...if you think you know how a particlular sentence could be reworded, then just do it! Akradecki 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this point. If every Wikipedia article explained absolutely every term, it'd result in inflated articles with duplicated content. Why explain what a turbofan is, or oversimplify, when Wikilinks serve the purpose? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever 

message: The article lost its sections specification, references and so on. Can´t detect the reason, so my advice here. --82.83.194.166 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost of specification, references etc. 

message: This thingie is in japanese navy patrol service, equipped with big under-fuselage radar and anti-shipping missile under the wing, a true warplane. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found any reliable evidence that any user has armed LJ36s, including Japan. Btw, that pic looks like a doctored or concept image, and not a real aircraft in flight. We can't use pics as reliable sources. - BillCJ (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The U-36s are used for target towing and electronic warfare training. I think the picture is real, if you look carefully at the pod it looks like a towed target which is what you would expect in that role. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LJ36A with fangs 

message: The top two pictures on this page are of they same verson of the plane from the same angle.  I really don't think that the second picture adds anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.106.132 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the pictures too similar 

message: The specifications section lists the maximum speed (Vno) as 461 knots and the Never Exceed speed (Vne) as 350 knots.  This does not make sense; Vno should be well below Vne.  DES (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vno > Vne 

message: Notable or not notable? Two killed in Des Plaines River plane crash This item has been added twice, and removed twice, citing non-notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents. This incident does, however, seem to meet the notability guideline in that:
*The event resulted in a fatality or fatalities among the aircraft occupants -Yes
*The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft -Yes
*The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. -Too early to tell
The guideline states that for "airline and military aircraft" at least one of these three conditions must be met; in this case, at least two have been met. This aircraft was operated by a commercial freight carrier, and this particular model (35A) has a military variant. The guideline does require a higher notability standard for light aircraft, defined as maximum gross weight under 12,500 lb, which does not apply to this aircraft. It appears to me that this incident (or any fatal accident involving a Lear 35) meets the criteria set in the project guideline. Wine Guy Talk 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago crash January 2010 

message: For the record, this is an article about an airplane, and should not be included in the category "Falklands articles". PirateArgh!!1!  07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a Falkland airplane, see the categories --Jor70 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something no one probably cares about 

message: Substituted at 18:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Learjet 35. 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/20090604091453/http://help.com/post/24361-upali-wijewardene to http://help.com/post/24361-upali-wijewardene
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) 09:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Learjet 35. 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/20110714023715/http://www.malaysiadivingcommunity.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t466.html to http://www.malaysiadivingcommunity.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t466.html
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) 14:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)