Talk:Cessna Citation X

message: I know price isn't listed at cessna.com, but does anyone know how much the X runs? - MSTCrow 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: $22 million plane, slicing through the air. --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost? 

message: There are F-104s in private service - are they not included in the term "civilian jet"?
This (imho incorrect) claim is made in the introduction and in the Speed section.  Is there any reason to not fix these sections (by adding more detail, or removing the claims)?Nmh (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correctness 

message: Much of this article is written like a sales brochure. Is the author trying to tell me about this aircraft, or actually SELL me this aircraft!--Bodybagger (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The you haven't read many brochures lately! (And most brochures include phone numbers. I didn't see one here!) As stated in my edit summary, most of the actual text problems can be solved by adding proper citations to the article. Also, please remeber that Wikipedia articles are generally wrtten and edited by a number of people, not just one "author". I'm pretty certain that you will disagree with my revions, however. If you do revert the tag removal, please be so kind as to go through the article's text, and try to list the specific problem phrases that you feel are trying to SELL you this aircraft. In my brief read-through of the page, I didn't see anything remotely like that. There are some claims, such as to being the fastest aircraft in production, but that's to be expected here, though it should have a specific source. General tags like you've added are really not that helpful to me if the problems aren't obvious,a nd these aren't. I've seen a number of articles that were definitely adverts, and many thatn contained "brochure"-type info, and I've cleaned out a lot of them. Any problems here are minor compared to those. - BillCJ (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock terms, advertising, sales tone... 

message: In the article it says:
# Maximum speed: Mach 0.92 (1002.8 km/h)
# Cruise speed: Mach 0.82 (991.8 km/h)
Certainly km/h per Mach depends on altitude, but such a timy increase in km/h for a significant change in Mach?
91.97.82.185 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody removed Cruise Mach number. I must remember everybody here that jet planes use Mach as a standard unit for speed. Other important information regarding cruise speed on jets is the type of regime applied: is that Mach .82 for long range, economical or high speed cruise? We need an assistance of a certified pilot with an approved airplane flight manual to give us such (correct) numbers.RobertoRMola (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mach and km/h correct? 

message: They renamed it according to there website, so I updated the sections title and added a note at the end of the section. Danjw1 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Citation X 

message: ...who put "citation needed" next to number of Citations built?  moeburn (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. What's your problem with it? - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you need it for? Will you be flying it yourself? Just curious... :-) - Jcb (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok who's the joker 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cessna Citation X. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skycontrol.net/industry/winglet-technology-nearing-completion-of-cessna-citation-x-elliptical-winglet-flight-testing/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103133801/http://www.cessna.com:80/citation/citation-x/new-citation-x-overview.html to http://www.cessna.com/citation/citation-x/new-citation-x-overview.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Cessna Citation X section 0 states:
:"According to the manufacturer, it is currently the fastest civilian aircraft in the world."
:Possibly better if true: "It is currently the fastest civilian aircraft in the world.[link to the manufacturer also stating this fact]"
I'm guessing that "civilian" here means non-commercial, non-governmental, and non-military (commercial and military exclusive aircrafts are much faster and not available to civilians). It travels at over 700 mph (near the speed of sound), but it may only be the fastest passenger plane in the world. I private jet available to civilians without all those seats may be faster? and is the fastest aircraft available to civilians.
Also, should this page state or references how much it cost ($22 million)? Only the megarich can afford it. --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: File:N2AZ LAX (28997210716).jpg|current, a bit from rear, a bit from below, pleasing clean config though
File:Cessna 750 Citation X, WMS Industries JP333985.jpg|clean config also, a bit less from the rear
File:N975QS 2002 Cessna 750 C-N 750-0175 Citation X (7039507775).jpg|front/side view but gear down
--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  main pic change 

message: The dimensions listed in this document are for the Citation X+.  The article would be improved by adding the dimensions for the Citation X which can be found here:  .  The correct dimensions for this variant are 19.39 m (wingspan), 22.04 m (length).  I am new to wikipedia and having difficulty editing this section. SvenskaCertina (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation X dimensions are missing/incorrect