Talk:Learjet 23

26 accidents out of 104 airplanes?

This article says: "A total of 104 model 23's were built. In 1998 there were still 39 LJ23's in use. Only 26 LJ23's have been lost through accidents." Do I understand correctly that 26 airplanes have been lost through accidents, on a total of 104? And the article says "Only"? If the number is correct (I did not verify), then, at least, the word "Only" should be removed. If someone has verifiable informations on why this number is so high, this would be an interesting addition. -- Francois Beaune

You forgot to factor in time, the type has been in service for 47 years. That is only a little more than 1 airframe loss accident every two years. Roger (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a list of them at the Aviation Safety Network here. It has 27 entries, more than half from 1972 or earlier. Some of the aircraft were damaged beyond repair in non-fatal landing mishaps, and one was consumed in a ground fire; the majority of fatal accidents seem to be the result of pilot error or "undetermined." -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As a postscript to that, there are now thirty entries - none after 2010, so the three new ones must be retrospective. One of them was destroyed on the ground during the Six-Day War. The ground fire seems to have been deliberate sabotage. Three of them overran the runway. The point I was trying to make is that the majority were the result of pilot error rather than a problem with the aircraft itself. I imagine that unfamiliarity with high-performance jets was a major factor. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Range stated in current article is unrealistically high

I won't edit the article because I can't find what I consider an authoritative reference but having looked at the specs on any number of modern light jets with far more efficient engines, the stated range of 2,549 mi is simply not feasible. Some example references:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/learjet23.html : 1650 miles

http://www.consumer-guides.info/private_jets/index.html : 1875 miles

http://www.pimaair.org/Acftdatapics/LEARJET%20MOL%2023.htm : 1830 miles

UweRoss 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous conversion miles --> kilometres

I believe there is a math error in converting miles to kilometres, stated in section "Performance", line "Range" - as kilometer is shorter than mile (any mile, nautical or otherwise) the number of kilometres should always be higher than number of miles for given distance (range).

I won't edit this article myself - I'm not quite sure what the convertion ratio is, and I don't want to edit the text with data I'm not sure about. Besides, another reader of this article pointed out that this range seems to be unreasticaly high, so I think this issue should be clarified first - and only then the number of kilometres vs miles should be addressed.

85.221.205.250 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I suggest the merger of SAAC-23 into Learjet 23. The SAAC-23 never came any further than the design table/project study. However, the study laid some of the ground works for the Learjet 23. The Banner talk 12:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The SAAC-23 differend to the later Learjet 23. That it was "only" a project study is no reason, we have a lot articel about aircraft studis.. XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707,.. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A Merge is also not usual in this case... see Northrop YF-17 who is not merged with McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The YF-17 made into hardware and was actually a completely different aircraft to what emerged as the F-18, with only the layout and shape in common. The SAAC-23 proposal didn't reach the hardware stage but was very close to the initial Lear Jet 23--Petebutt (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Move to Draftspace or Delete - While I see room for an article on the prototype study, this piece of incoherent, unintelligible garbage isn't it. Nothing really worth merging. While I understand that FFA P-16 means well, his competence in English is far too poor to allow tripe such as this to pollute mainspace. I'd have sent it to AFD, but those aren't supposed to run concurrently with other discussions. - BilCat (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

BilCat - you are being very harsh and intolerant, please soften your tone.--Petebutt (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't harsh enough. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge A precis of this article merged to Learjet 23 would probably be the best solution.--Petebutt (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comments - For those who don't know, User:FFA P-16 has been indefinitely blocked for rampant sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. Per WP:DENY, I've moved the SAAC-23 article to Draft:SAAC-23. Anyone who can independently verify any content from that article to Learjet 23. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal part deux Oct 19

Looks like this sockpuppet has reared his ugly head again. Almost identical content with the same poor use of English, with mostly non relevant content.--Petebutt (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC) @MilborneOne: he's back, again already Petebutt (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and article deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

main photo change

• 
  current: does not show the wing and is confusing to understand its configuration with tip tanks not separated from the fuselage, low resolution
• 
  proposed: taken from a slightly higher angle, better shows the aircraft configuration with separate tip tanks

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)