Talk:Epic Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Oregon (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the month are Cover Oregon & Heathman Hotel.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Edit request[edit]

Hello Aviation Community! I would like to update the company description for Epic Aircraft. The current description is incorrect and outdated. The content and format I am submitting is similar to other aircraft company listings on Wikipedia.

Current

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon. The company offered three high performance kit aircraft models and was in the process of developing two certified models when it entered bankruptcy in late 2009. It has since reopened under new ownership with a focus on the kit aircraft

Correct Company Description

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon and is owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. They are well known for their high performance experimental single-engine aircraft powered by the popular PT6 turboprop. The company discontinued manufacturing kit planes and is moving toward FAA certified aircraft.

Below are aviation articles and news release's that support the information in the company description I am submitting.

These Articles announce new ownership and company focus to discontinue kit planes and move towards certification. http://www.avweb.com/news/snf/SunNFun2013_Epic_Certification_208477-1.html http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-news-live/sun-n-fun/2013-04-10/epic-aircraft-plans-certify-epic-lt-turboprop-single-late-2014

This article, printed by Aircraft Owners and Pilots, discuss the high performance aircraft and specifications for Epic LT aircraft as well as the move to certified aircraft. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/October/Pilot/Epic-LT-Seeing-is-believing.aspx

Your help with this update is greatly appreciated.

Piper Thomas (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this change as long as the WP:PEACOCK terms are removed - "well known" and "popular" are subjective, non-neutrals terms unless a reliable independent source says it (press releases and trade publications may be reliable but they aren't independent sources). More neutral wording would be:
Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon, owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. The company manufactures high performance experimental single-engine aircraft powered by the PT6 turboprop. Since emerging from bankruptcy in 2009, the company has discontinued manufacturing kit planes and is moving toward FAA certified aircraft.
~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest "the company has discontinued manufacturing kit planes and is focusing on type certified aircraft". - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's better than "moving toward". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I broadly support the edit request. @Amatulic, Can you clarify "The company manufactures high performance experimental single-engine aircraft powered by the PT6 turboprop"? Do you mean Epic or Engineering LLC? Does it currently manufacture aircraft for sale as experimental vehicles? Where does the PT6 reference suddenly spring from? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I was simply making small revisions to the original wording proposed by the Epic rep. As to your questions: (a) I assume "the company" means "Epic". (b) The paragraph is ambiguous about the current manufacturing line, and that should be clarified as to whether it currently manufactures experimental aircraft kits. (c) PT6 was mentioned in the first proposal, is the type of engine it uses, and it's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Perhaps you meant to direct these questions to Piper Thomas, not me. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Steelpillow! In response to your questions, a) Yes, "the company" is Epic Aircraft. (b) The company is known for manufacturing high performance experimental (or Kit) aircraft from 2004 through 2013. In 2013 the company discontinued manufacturing kit planes and is now focused on type certification aircraft. The Epic aircraft is powered by the popular PT-6 Pratt & Whitney Single Turbo Prop engine. Hope this clarifies any questions. The updated company description is correct now. Let me know when I can finalize the changes. Thanks!
Piper Thomas (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for the replies. I guess I was addressing my questions to both of you, as they applied to both your versions. Re. the PT6, technically we need a citation that all the types use this engine but for now I think we can just add a fact tag. Can I suggest the following lead:

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon, owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. The company is developing a number of FAA certified single-engine models for sale.

In the past Epic has manufactured and sold kits for high performance experimental models. These kits have been discontinued, following bankruptcy in 2009 and subsequent change of ownership and reorganisation.

All Epic designs are powered by a single PT6 turboprop engine.[citation needed]


Any good? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is good! A couple of changes .. 1. The company is developing a number of FAA certified single-engine models for sale. Should read, " The company is focused on Type Certified Aircraft. Epic has only one aircraft model. 2. Why reference bankruptcy in the company information? This is old news and already well noted in the history section.

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon, owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. The company is focused on FAA certified single-engine turboprop aircraft.

In the past Epic has manufactured and sold kits for high performance experimental models. These kits have been discontinued, following change of ownership and reorganization.

All Epic designs are powered by a single PT6 turboprop engine.[citation needed]


Thanks!Piper Thomas (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I accept most of your points. However, most companies are focused on type certification, there is nothing notable about that as such. How about:

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon, owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. The company is developing its first FAA certified model for sale.

In the past Epic has manufactured and sold kits for high performance experimental models. These kits have been discontinued, following change of ownership and reorganization.

All Epic designs are powered by a single PT6 turboprop engine.[citation needed]


Any better? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The guideline WP:LEAD defines the purpose of the lead paragraph. Its purpose is to provide a concise overview of the body of the article, and the most recent proposal doesn't accomplish this. For example, the article goes into some detail about bankruptcy and change of ownership but the lead mentions only the change of ownership. The bankruptcy seems to be a rather notable event and should be mentioned. The fact that it may be "old news" is irrelevant for the intended purpose of the lead paragraph of an encyclopedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether this particular bankruptcy is so noteworthy might be debatable. If the proposal to mention it in the lead here is merely to reflect an undue emphasis given in the main body of the article, then perhaps it would be better to reduce that emphasis. What other aero company articles focus so strongly on the minor infighting over a single event? The key event is the change of direction, that should be enough for the lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In the case of some companies bankruptcy is a minor blip in the company history, but in the case of Epic it totally changed the company: new management, new owners twice over, and a changed focus from kits to certified aircraft. Also it was a very chaotic bankruptcy, involving the board firing the founder and not at all an orderly procedure, unlike Hawker Beechcraft, for instance. I think it was the one key event in the company's history and deserves a bit more emphasis than it now has. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
OK I'll stop arguing the other way. That now leaves us with this proposed lead:

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon, owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. The company is developing its first FAA certified model for sale.

In the past Epic has manufactured and sold kits for high performance experimental models. These kits have been discontinued, following bankruptcy in 2009 and subsequent changes of ownership and reorganization.

All Epic designs are powered by a single PT6 turboprop engine.[citation needed]


Can we all accept this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not correct. Epic did not discontinue manufacturing kit planes after the bankruptcy in 2009,instead Epic continues to manufacture kit planes just no longer taking additional orders as of Oct 2013. Kit planes continue to be manufactured at the facility through serial #54. These planes will be completed through 2014 when the company will manufacture certified aircraft. Additionally in December, Epic and their customers obtained three additional C of A's for kit planes.

It would be correct to say, "These kits have been discontinued, following change of ownership and reorganization." Thank you !! Piper Thomas (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to have a reference to back up those claims; even company press releases would do. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Section break 1[edit]

True nothing, at this time, to backup the claim that kits have been discontinued. How about this version? It is factual and simply describes the company and its aircraft.

Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer in Bend, Oregon, owned by Engineering LLC based in Russia. Since its new ownership, the company is developing its first FAA certified model for sale. In the past Epic has manufactured and sold kits for high performance experimental models. All Epic designs are powered by a single PT6 turboprop engine.[citation needed] Piper Thomas (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I wonder what else is still wrong that nobody has spotted yet. For example I have just noticed that the Epic Victory is a jet, so obviously not PT6-powered. Rather than go on endlessly round and round here, I think it is high time to collect what we have discussed and put it up there. At least it will be better than what is there now, and further changes can always have a new topic started. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh I was waiting to bring up the fact that not all their models are PT-6 powered. In fact only one aircraft model that has been flown is, the LT. I didn't want to muddy the waters too early here by bringing that up, though. The recent re-additions of history text and the new lead look good. This process is slow, but it is working! - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Except, the lead most recently proposed doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. It's fine to ensure that the facts are correct, but the lead should still provide an overview of the notable points in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we are pretty close there right now! What do you think needs to be added to the lead? - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)