Talk:Airplane house

I have a much different understanding of the term "airplane house" than what is currently shown. The term is often used to describe a home that is constructed as any wood frame structure in the following fashion. The main floor consists of a single level that typically runs the same direction of the lot, i.e. front to back with the sides being narrower than the depth. This would be the perpendicular part of the letter "T". In the back portion of the structure a second story is added on top of the first floor. This would be the horizintal portion of the letter "T". Thus the structure when completed has the look of an airplane if looked at from above. The back portion has two stories and the front portion has one story. It looks somewhat like a cross but the back portion ( the cross bar if you will) is often placed right at the end of the first floor portion making it look more like a "T" shape than an airplane.

--24.31.231.49 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a manual

This really needs to be rewritten in a way that doesn't sound like a set of instructions. L1ght5h0w (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed use of you

I removed all inappropriate uses of "you" from the article and replaced them with "the customer". However, the article is still written like a manual and it would be difficult to rewrite it. MeanMotherJr (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup message

This article contains a cleanup message stating that it is an orphan.

I will remove that message; there is now a page linking to it.

Richard Apple 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reads a little like an advertisement

Given the repeated stresses on the comparatively low costs (with "regular" homes) and the advantages with no counterpoint on possible disadvantages this seems like it was written by someone who might have an economic interest in promoting airplane homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaNyGuy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airplane house. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524144925/http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/index.html to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524144925/http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/index.html to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/index.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Very serious inaccuracies are pervasive. What shall we do?

With respect everyone this page seems composed by people with no significant experience with the subject nor fact checking discipline and thus very serious inaccuracies are pervasive - too many to cite comprehensively.

Very good native insulation is an example - the native insulation of both old and modern jetliners, while superbly fabricated, is quite modest in thermal performance compared to modern homes which utilize materials which are less thermally conductive by nature (wood rather than metals for example) and afford far more insulation space and reasonably support far more mass than can be wisely allocated to a jetliner due to strict space utilization and mass related fuel efficiency constraints. Another example is that retired jetliners may be purchased directly from airlines (and for rather comprehensive projects that's a wiser, more efficient, and more economical acquisition method).

I don't mean to be rude to the original authors but in my experience literally every element of this page is wholly inaccurate or substantially misleading save one - one acre is indeed about the minimum parcel size necessary to site a standard narrow body aircraft (six seat wide cabin, or five for MD-80 class aircraft).

That said due to time constraints I have no constructive suggestion to offer for this page. My first obligation is to my AirplaneHome.com and sister sites where I strive to provide comprehensive information for this vision. And since they currently lag a bit I can't allocate time to try to improve this page.

Given my personal position I can't be wholly objective in this matter, but currently I can't recommend Wikipedia as a credible source for information about this vision, which is a shame of course. Nor offhand do I know of any reasonably informative sources other than my personal sites.

So what's to be done? If a skilled researcher and author found the subject engaging I'd recommend reviewing AirplaneHome.com (including AirplaneHome.com/AirplaneHomeProjectGuide.html and Airplanehome.com/FAQs.html), my sister sites, and whatever other reasonably credible references could be found, then recompose this page utterly from scratch. But I assume it's unlikely such a person will arise.

I love Wikipedia but am mostly ignorant of its standards. In cases where an existing page is so factually misguided as to be not just useless, but could lead to quite wasteful project mistakes and misallocation of time and resources, and no sufficiently knowledgable composers are able to devote time to render a reasonably credible page, is standard Wikipedia rhetoric available to warn readers that a particular page has grave problems essentially in its entirety and thus is wholly untrustworthy?

What shall we do? --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@H Bruce Campbell: The best course would be to edit the page using information backed by reliable sources. If you are about to do that it would be a big improvement. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)