Talk:Cessna Citation family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reorganization overview

The whole series of Citation articles, starting with this one, has become quite disjointed. Thus, I'm undertaking an effort to get things cleaned up a bit. I'll be documenting the progress here. There are five distinct families of Citations, and many variants within those. This article will soon have a "lineage overview" section after the lead paragraph, followed by development information about the original family. As there are a few other articles out there, they will then become the foundation for detailed information on each of the other 4 families and their offspring. Suggestions, copy edits and flaming darts are always welcome. Akradecki 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The generally excellent articles and comments do not make it clear that the name "Citation 500" applied to the original model. In (I believe) 1978 the 550 model was introduced, which was called "Citation II". The 500 was now called "Citation I" and was built alongside the II, but it had a number of upgrades; the engines were upgraded to -1A and the aircraft was given an added foot or so extra wing span. The electrical system was upgraded, too with two identical inverters (in the original version, selection of the standby inverter caused the loss of the weather radar). Most buyers of the new Citation I opted for recognition lights to be fitted in the extended wingtips. Thrust reverse was not an extra many owners opted for, mainly due to the added weight. Both the original Citation and the Citation I are sharing the model designation "500" (or 501 for the single pilot version), but they are not identical. I can not find any mention of the origin of the name "Citation" for this aircraft; it has been named after a famous American race horse. When chided by my friends and colleagues flying Learjets - calling my aircraft "Slotation" or "Nearjet" - the only aircraft which needs a calender in the cockpit, in needs of reinforced trailing edges for bird strike protection, in need of aft-looking radar to detect fast moving squall lines... all the silly jokes and remarks - I counter with "Why is the Learjet so fast? Answer: It is too b...y uncomfortable to spend any length of time in !" But Cessna Citation has the last laugh, the 650 can cruise up to M.84 and the Citation X is, with Concord withdrawn from service, currently the fastest civil aircraft ! And the original design is so good that Sierra Industries is re-vamping old 500 airframes with new interior, exterior, full glass cockpit and Williams 44 engines. It should cruise at M.7 or thereabouts and does not disgrace itself in the climb, either ! I have been rated in Citations since 1979 and still enjoy flying them. Rudy

Reorganization, Phase I

The article has now been rewritten. Because "Cessna Citation" can refer to both the overall product line, The first major section of this article is a product line overview. While I realize that usually this kind of info comes much later in a typical WikiProject Aircraft article, I believe that the Citation needs to be an exception, because the product line is so convoluted. By putting it here, the reader who may not be that familiar with the product line can get a "roadmap" of sorts in order to understand what all is involved with the Citation brand.

Since "Cessna Citation" traditionally also can refer to the original straight-wing family that grew from the Citation I, I have also included details of this family in this article. It is my goal to have a separate article on each of the other five families. Akradecki 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and because this is a long and involved project, there are a couple of redlinks in the article at the moment, which will turn blue as the project gets completed. Please be patient with these for the moment....Akradecki 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization, Phase II

User:Akradecki (Alan) did an excellent job in reorganizing the Citation family articles, but I don't believe he fully completed what he set out to do, as he pursued and obtained an adminship just a few months after the above posts. Sadly, he is not active on WP at this time.

I did not appreciate the very hard work Alan had done on the Citations until I ran across a set of articles created after he did the initial reorganization. These articles, the Cessna Citation CJ1, Cessna Citation CJ2, Cessna Citation CJ3, and Cessna Citation CJ4, were an absolute mess. No attempt was even made to link them to this overview rticle, which is probaly why they went for a year basically untouched, and certainly unimproved. I have just finished merging them into the Cessna CitationJet article, and I hope the result is much better now. I'm not trying to be unfair in my criticism of the primary editor responsible for the creation of these articles, but by not linking them elsewhere, he deprived these articels of the assistance of other editors in the project. As I write this, other editors have already made edits to the new article, and it will be much better for it!

While doing the work of updating and merging the CJ family, I was able to review and improve some of the other Citation family aticles. Alan described six basic families of Citations, and I beleive he intended to have an article on each one. Right now, there are 3 "family" aricles, and two on the "upper and lower bookend" models, the Cessna Citation Mustang and the Cessna Citation Columbus. One new model, the Sovereign, is curently on the Cessna Citation Excel page. As I've noted on that talk page, I do support splitting it off to it's own page, but the content is not there right now for me to do it,and I don't have access to recent info, or to pics of the Sovereign.

There are three other families that do not have pages yet (or I haven't found them!):

• The Citation I series
• The Citation II series, including the Bravo
• The Citation V series, including the Ultra and Encore

There is probably enough info in this article to split the V series off right now, and I will be looking into that article next. The others may take some time, aand then this article will be primarily an overview page. At that point, I will split up the "Citation product line lineage overview" section, with its rather-complicated indentations, giving each familyl a major heading/sub-heading.

Any comments or assistence will be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign

For goodness sake, I am typed in the C680 and you guys keep claiming that it is based on the Excel fuselage. And now you have a link to an old and inaccurate story from Airliners.net that supports this. The Sovereign uses the Citation X fuselage and nose. The wings, engines, and empennage are different. Originally Cessna was going to use the Excel fuselage and stretch it, but they did not. The airliners.net article is old and inaccurate. Call Cessna in Wichita and ask them, or ask any C680 driver like myself. The Excel fuselage has nothing to do with the Sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.173.59 (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Cessna Citation Columbus be merged into Cessna Citation. Until such time that it becomes notable in its own right, if ever, I propose that these articles be merged. The columbus was only ever a twinkle in Cessnas eye before being put on hold indefinitely, and doesn't warrant a separate article. Merge and re-direct Petebutt (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) it should stay a separate article. We have lots of articles on cancelled projects and they are quite historically useful when referenced properly like this article is. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Ahunt. Also, the article contains too much referenced material to be adequately summarized in a short entry on the main Citation page. - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - this has been open a month now, I think we can close this as "no consensus to merge". - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New Aircraft

The Longitude article is sketchy on actually verified details (beyond blogger speculation), and the Latitude article simply doesn't exist. Think there's some improvement there in order. Anomaly (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources out there besides blog speculation yet? If not, there's not much left we can do until something concrete from reliable sources is available. - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Both have pages up on the Cessna website now, with a good bit of information. Plenty of brochures out there too. Plus, there's a LOT of stuff like http://www.bartintl.com/headlines/feb-2012/cessna-citation-latitude-has-new-longer-range And considering they've come out and said the Latitude is the 680A, it's a good bet that it's a Sovereign based aircraft. 68.103.185.180 (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone (perhaps your alter-ego? No need to comment on that if you want to remain anon) has created the article, so feel free to add to it now, per WP:SOFIXIT. - BilCat (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One and the same. The trick is finding solid sources that agree with each other for stuff, since it changes and the aviation media hasn't been good at keeping up, otherwise I'd add more. 68.103.185.180 (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/Cessna

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cessna_bravo/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on...

Not ONE tag in the whole article? That's a gross oversight.--95.115.81.169 (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to add any maintenance tags that you think appropriate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is full of Citations already. It doesn't need anymore until Cessna makes a new one. - BilCat (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Transcluding model articles

The result of transcluding into this article the lede of individual Citation articles (as opposed to writing ad-hoc text) is that the article now reads likes a disjointed patchwork of paragraphs, and is dumbly repetitive: I counted 15 links to Cessna, as many to business jet, and several circular links (which render in bold as Cessna Citation family), plus a lot of inappropriate bolding (Citation this, Citation that etc). I mean: the idea of avoiding duplication of source code is good when writing software, but not necessarily so when writing encyclopedias. Are there any objections to rewriting each paragraph with text tailored for this list article? The current information content in each paragraph (incl. the Main template) is more or less adequate; it just needs to be properly reworded. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it's disappointing. Let me try a few adjustments to the transclusions!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure a satisfactory result can be achieved through transclusion. It's not just a matter of overlinking; it's that every paragraph introduces a Citation model as if the reader has never heard of Cessna or the Citation family before, which makes sense in the model articles where those paragraphs are taken from, but can only read odd and repetitive in this list article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Repetitions avoided by not transcluding the 1st sentence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's better, although at least one reference should be included in the summary, because most of the list is unreferenced, as it stands now. Also, the 526 CitationJet deserves a dedicated entry; it's too different from the 525 to be lumped together in the same section. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References does not seem urgent as details are all in the individual articles. A general reference (like AvWeek's BCA shoppers guide) could be used if needed. The 526 is not a business jet obviously, so a passing mention in this Cessna Citation family article seemed adequate.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... yes, upon reading again WP:LISTVERIFY, we might get away with leaving the sources in the main articles. However, I disagree about the 526: this is not an article about Cessna's business jets; it's about the Citation family, of which the 526 is a distinct member in its own right, albeit a bit of an outlier compared to the other members. It only makes sense to list it as such (although probably it needs not be added to the timeline table). --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much on military aircraft, please go ahead.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)