Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Someone needs to edit this section - Gadair went bankrupt over a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.140.211 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Pearl Aircraft Corporation is not US-based company. Their corporate site http://www.pearlaircraft.com/corporate-profile/ states that "Pearl Aircraft Corporation, Ltd is a Bermuda-based commercial aircraft leasing company ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.211.133.57 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In the "Design" section, the aircraft is said to be "designed to compete against the Embraer E-Jets and the Bombardier CSeries programs." Should this actually read Bombardier CRJ Series? The CRJ and CSeries are different programs. The CRJ is 50-90 passengers, whereas the CSeries is an earlier stage of development than the Sukhoi here, and will be 110-130 passengers.
Cite: "A longer "SSJ 100-110" and "SSJ 100-125" is also projected.": "The Superjet-100 (SSJ-100, formerly known as RRJ [5]) is designed to compete against the Embraer E-Jets and the Bombardier CSeries programs." is right. For more informations and verification: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211873/russian-revolution-the-sukhoi-superjet.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.203.185 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Design subsection reads like an advertisement for this aircraft. 98.227.114.222 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite neutral - there are pros and cons. What statements are unsatisfied you, folks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.122.212 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Main thing is that section starts from comparison claims that are indeed more like advertisement than actual coverage of design process. If you moved to the bottom of the same paragraph or moved it out to "Reception" or "Criticism", then it would make more sense. 98.210.248.73 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The section looks neutral enough to me. What is the problem? Could you provide an example of what you mean? Offliner (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Noise and emissions levels of SSJ100 meet the strictest ecological demands and surpass the highest existing and future ICAO requirements" - This maybe correct, but a sentence like this is hardly wikipedia-worthy. How about sources and numbers? And all those superlatives (strictest, highest) just make it sound like an advertisement.
"Fuel efficiency is secured by the third generation supercritical airfoil wing and excellent local aerodynamics. All this combined with perfectly balanced aircraft control laws in autopilot mode add to fuel consumption savings. Weight perfection and the SaM146 engine, tailored for this aircraft family, reduce fuel consumption per seat by 10% compared to its rivals." - Words like "excellent" and "perfectly" are anything but neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.142.178 (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Total firm orders do not match official source: "Currently, the solid order portfolio for the new regional jet reaches 122 aircraft." http://superjet100.com/mediacenter/press/00198/ 79.222.31.120 (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
March 31 - April 1, 2014 Potential fraudulent articles/ internet rumor about unannounced/unsubstantiated Chinese purchases of 100 SuperJets. I removed the following references to a NON-EXISTENT Chinese customer by the name of Henan-Oberoi ordering 100 sukhoi SuperJets on March 25th, 2014:
The articles state that the order contract is for exactly $3.54 Billion (that's right take the unit price $35.4 Million and multiple by 100); an obvious idiotic and simplistic lie given that no aircraft contract is simply the unit cost of the airplane times the number of units purchased. If this contract was real (which Sukhoi confirms it is not, since it is only an MoU) it would include costs for sparing, maintenance, service, training, marketing, financing, overhead, regulatory, legal-services and potentially some technology transfer etc.
The actual fact is that only an MoU has been signed regarding intentions to do business; i.e. no confirmed orders of any sort can concluded from an MoU. According to the Financial Times (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/03/26/russias-sukhoi-eyes-big-jet-deal-with-chinese-company/#axzz2xbbxJpmL):
This is further underscored by the fact no reference to such an order can be found on the official Sukhoi SuperJet website (with the latest press release dated at March 18 and 26, 2014 only making references to InterJet, a Mexican carrier). The references provided in this wikipedia article are sourced from claimed affirmations of a signed deal with a Chinese customer by a Chinese oriented tabloid source of dubious reputation ("wantchinatimes.com") and another chinese source (chinadaily.com.cn) with neither Chinese source agreeing on the correct name of the alleged customer: according to "wantchinatimes.com the customer's name is Henan-Oberoi Aircraft (Oberoi is a large Indian company with no aviation interests in China) or according to ChinaDaily.cn the name of the alleged customer is "Henan O-Bay Aircraft". Given the unreliable, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated nature of claims made in these 2 articles and their contradictions, the absence of an official press-release from Sukhoi SuperJet and the fact that an FT.times blog only mentions a potential MoU (Memorandum of Understanding), this cannot be taken to mean a confirmed order of 100 jets. Consequently, the text and reference corresponding to them have been removed from this Wikipedia article.
I have also removed the references to this internet exaggeration of a Chinese purchase of 100 SuperJets from the Orders Table and corrected the order count back to 284 jets (which even at 284 orders is a tremendous success for Sukhoi, enabling it recoup all development costs and obtain on-going profits as well). The removed table entry is as follows:
25 March 2014 | Oberoi Aircraft | 2016-2018 | 100 | [1] |
Only if and when a confirmed order is announced from official Sukhoi SuperJet joint venture (Sukhoi International or Sukhoi Civil Aviation) can this order be added to order count tally. 74.59.157.98 (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
References
This is not a Sukhoi plane, this is an FSB plane. It is a copycat of the stolen Dornier-Fairchild 728 design, the induced bankruptcy of that company was a big success of the russian secret service! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
interestingly to see someone still living in the cold war. I believe this plane would have great future and lifts the Russian aircraft industry to a new level, because this plane was developed with reasonable market and technological analysis carried out by specialists, not by the politicians. Canadian and Brazilian can make medium sized air craft, but their technology and production capacity can hardly compete with the Russian, what Russians lack is the ability to market their products out and provide after-sale service, this is the reason they cooperate with the Italians. Of course Boeing and Air bus will continue to rule the big plane market for couple of years, its harder to make bigger aircraft and Russians will need more times on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.250.153 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of removing all citation templates and converting them to bare refs? I very much prefer citation templates. Offliner (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Conversion from litres to pounds doesn't seem right. I'm pretty sure 13,000 litres weighs more than 28 pounds. AMCKen (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Fixed using conversion (averaged because density was listed as 0.775-0.840 kg/L) found at Jet fuel Metre01 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The article in the "Specifications" section gives the same maximum fuel capacity for all four variants. This cannot be correct as there are two aircraft sizes in regular and long range variants. Q43 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Numerous similar aircraft are in competition. There should be a section discussing the redundancy of splintering the market and on the considerations in producing yet another new type when Russia's allies face the same devilishly formidable competitors as Russia, especially within the borders of the United States. Could Airbus, Antonov, Bombardier, Fokker, Tupelov, Comac, Embraer, and Mitsubishi have combined talents to create a Superduperuperjet? For example on some Airbus planes, the seatbelts don't work. Perhaps they have a shortage of engineering talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.17.194 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delta Airlines may have had placed an order. Can anyone confirm this.--Trulystand700 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC) http://en.rian.ru/business/20110623/164789608.html
Please do not tag the www.sukhoi.superjet100.com/mediacenter/ links as dead, unless they're down for a long time. They seem to be sometimes down for a while, before starting to work again. After I noticed the latest tagging, I checked the links, and they indeed did not work. Then I navigated to the same pages via "press center" -> "press releases", and now the links seem to work fine again. Strange, I know. Nanobear (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry thats incorrect. See A380 A350 B787 Comac ARJ21 Comac 919 MS-21 or most other aircraft. Discuss, not on this talk page, but on the Aircraft portal. The flags add important info in a compressed form. Otherwise include the country. Tagremover (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it appears that a group of editors decided to push with the idea of removing country flags from aircraft pages despite the fact that not everyone finds this idea beneficial and there is a good argument why country flags should not be removed. Having country flags (that is, NOT removing them) is a good idea as it allows the reader to easily judge aircraft's market, whether it's domestic or international, and if it's international what countries are involved. Removing country flags may needlessly force the reader to work harder to get this information, potentially wasting reader's time and making the reader to click and read through many pages. Here's how one of the affected pages looked with flags in place and with flags removed. With reference to the above, please consider sharing your opinion on whether the country flags should be kept or removed. C1010 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You have to give a citation that the airline represents the country. In the RfC and the talk page's section above it discussion has commented that such information is unnecessary, irrelevant, unrelated, uncorrelated. I am concerned that some editors still want to make a tenuous connection between the a certain country and a certain airline/airplane model. Reinserting information such as just a "Canada", or an additional heading and thus column into a table to indicate somehow an airline/airplane model is connected to a country is breaching WP:OR particiularly WP:SYN. Please do not do this, and if you do discuss first.Curb Chain (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Per the above comments, it's pretty clear indicating through flags or a country-label because the plane has been ordered by a specific country is irrelevant and to contravene this is fancruft. Airlines may indeed be headquartered in certain countries, and with the special case of Scandinavian Airlines, we can still note that it is headquartered in 3 (different) countries, but not with flags.Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
"Where" -> "Were" needs correcting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.71.227 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
There has a been a bit of an edit war going on as to which photo should be included in the info box as the lead photo for this article. As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES "Many existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features. These images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this action will improve the article on the article's talk page."
As can be seen at the right, these are the two photos that have been edit-warred over. Personally I am neutral, I just reverted to the original photo so we can have a discussion whether it needs to be changed or not. So let's hear the pros and cons to each one and see if we can come up with a consensus to change it or not. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
They are both excellent photographs; why not compromise and use both in the article, the Aeroflot as the infobox image with the Armavia photograph appearing prominently in the body of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
Now written "designed by the civil aircraft division of the Russian aerospace company Sukhoi in co-operation with its main partner Boeing"
Any sources that Boeing designed something here at all? Simple try gives
"Consultancy in the field of project management, market planning, certification and customer support."
What does this have to designing? If nothing, why we write it so that one can get an impression that Boeing designed something here? Longbowman (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Orders section mentions a customer Finance Leasing Company ordering both for its self and for Yakutia Airlines. Could it be this is meant to indicate International Lease Finance Corporation more commonly known as ILFC ? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, a handful of stunning photos of the SSJ have just landed at Commons. This might make for interesting upgrades to the article. Ariadacapo (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering the recent repeated revert on the lead image to replace it with a low resolution picture, I contacted the uploader for further clarification. Will come back when get any response. Jee 04:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering the recent repeated revert on the lead image the Paris File:SSJ100 in Paris - SSJ100 hunt (5693088541).jpg|SSJ100 in Paris - SSJ100 hunt (5693088541)image is much better--105.108.42.231 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Kartika Airlines is listed as having ordered 50 of these aircraft (or roughly one in six of the total orders), but its article says that the airline ceased operations in 2010. Google also isn't turning up a reference for the airline still existing. Should this be removed from the table? Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
orders are not up to date! careful
these sources "Interjet Takes Up Option For Sukhoi Superjets." RIA Novosti (En.beta.rian.ru). Retrieved 10 July 2012. "Third Sukhoi Superjet 100 delivered to Interjet". Aviationnews.Eu. Retrieved 2013-11-07. are not reliable
also in Flight testing
On 28 January 2007, the first SSJ was transported by an Antonov 124 from Komsomolsk-on-Amur to the city of Zhukovsky near Moscow for ground tests. A representative of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft announced on 13 November 2007, the completion of static tests necessary for conducting the first flight.
is misplaced--Linkintupl (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES definition of angles of view and aircraft features, i have change an old image because the old one is not about the aircraft but rather about the scene but this shows the aircraft only! to a better image--Cyclopsox (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck
or maybe this one.--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck
helps to draw the readers' attention to the article? it is more like it helps to draw the readers' attention to the scene image rather than the aircraft which this article is all about!--Cyclopsox (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Comments of blocked sock struck
This edit request to Sukhoi Superjet 100 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, our company, EDM Ltd (www.edm.ltd.uk), manufactured the Sukhoi Superjet 100 training equipment that features in the photo labeled as a 'Ground rig for evacuation slide testing' in this article. This description is not accurate and we'd be grateful if you could amend the description of this equipment to 'Cabin Emergency Evacuation Trainer on a motion platform'. Many thanks. Adrian Lambert, Head of Global Marketing, EDM Ltd.
Adrianlambert71 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Somebody fix that table. It's a mess! Also, the table says 61 aircraft are operational, the infobox says 100 were produced. Where are the balance 39 planes? Does anyone even check those numbers? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Sukhoi Superjet 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Sukhoi Superjet 100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
In the "See also" section, the article features a list titled "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era". I expect it to contain a list of most notable competitors and contemporary aircraft of comparable performance. This seems to be the current consensus across aircraft articles (e.g. the 747 has the 773 and C-5 listed there). Rcbutcher would rather interpret the title in a strict sense (identical role, configuration and era) which here excludes a number of list items. Are there other opinions? Should we perhaps rename that section as “contemporary aircraft of comparable capabilities” or something similar?
@Rcbutcher: you are expected to remain civil and constructive in your edit summaries. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.