Talk:Frigate Ecojet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation (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
 
 
WikiProject Russia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
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.
 

This page is just culled straight from the company page. It´s including a bunch of crap that isn´t related to the Frigate Ecojet, i.e.talking about 204SM cargo modifications, mergers between airlines, etc. None of that is relevant to the Frigate Ecojet, rather should be on the pages for the Ilyushin company listing it´s projects, on S7 airlines page, etc. Those can be linked as partner companies participating in Frigate Ecojet, but all their details don´t belong here.


I agree. I tried to edit it, but the edit was removed, apparently by somebody who isn't even involved with this page (TBhotch).

Problems:

  • (as mentioned by previous Talker) info about Rosaviaconsortium is irrelevant to FRIGATE EKOJET,

a completely different plane (204SM) doesn't belong here, info about merger of Sibr/Vnukovo into S7 Airlines is irrelevant, info about Sirena Travel and Agent.ru doesn't belong here. As I wrote in the comment to my edit, it is reasonable for that info to be on SOME wiki page, but not Eko-Jet. compare to pages for other specific aircraft (actual or planned), there is not general information on the corporation designing it (that should on the page for said corporation), much less on other specific and totally unrelated projects they may be involved in.

  • the article claims it will use turboprop engines. the included mockup picture is clearly not a turboprop engine.

the article goes onto mention plans for PD-18 engine (accurate) but PD-18 is a Geared TurboFan, not a turboprop. (PD-18 doesn't have it's own page, but this fact is acknowledged in passing in the page for PD-14) the article is contradicting itself here.

  • what in the hell is carrier-based fins?
  • the introductory paragraph says the following:
more than 56% of flights on average with a range of less than 3000 km are operated by wide-body long-haul aircraft

that statement is obviously false, which you can know just by looking at how many narrowbody jets there are compared to widebody jets. that doesn't even include regional jets, business jets, and general aviation. 56% of flights <3000km are not operated by wide-body long-haul aircraft. i don't know where the figure was derived from (as suggested, copy-pasted from corporate PR sheet), but the only logical thing it COULD be referring to would be % of PASSENGER MILES, which is the logical comparison when looking at passengers moved by wide-bodies vs. narrow-bodies, the # of flights is an irrelevant fact when wide-bodies carry more passengers, which is the ultimate goal.

  • why is Rosaviaconsortium even listed as the manufacturer? they aren't a manufacturer or designer, they are a consortium of related companies, as seen in the irrelevant info posted, airline ticketting websites is not an airline manufacturer. UAC should be the listed manufacturer/designer.

why was my edit deleted and characterized as 'nonproductive' by TBhotch? all these issues are 100% valid. the article as-is is a joke, i AS A FIRST TIME WIKI VOLUNTEER was trying to correct obvious errors. the article is flagged with major issues, and potentially is going to be deleted. so editors who would fix it should be reverted?

i can't bother to do edits until i can see that mine are not deleted. hopefully TBhotch will revert his own reversion of my edit. Poimonkey (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


Edit re-instated after communicating with TBhotch. I attempted to follow the instructions: "ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again." but every time I tried I got a "403 Forbidden" page when I tried to follow the reporting mechanism (I am logged in). Poimonkey (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I consider the removal of the content to be a good edit and I got the same "403 Forbidden" message when I tried to report the "False Positive". YSSYguy (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it. If it isn't right please improve it? I tried hard. --Trulystand700 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)