Talk:Mooney International Corporation

Untitled

The aircraft list here is so incomplete as to be useless. It includes models that were never manufactured and skips most of the important models produced. I'd actually suggest deleting it entirely, as there is a very complete resource on the web at http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm ACzernek 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)ACzernek

Vertical Stabilizer Sweep

All Mooney aircraft have the signature vertical stabilizer with its vertical leading edge and swept trailing edge that gives the illusion of being forward-swept.

Technically, the vertical stab is forward-swept because sweep is determined at the quarter-chord point, not the leading edge. Shawn D. (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Page name should be "Mooney Aviation Company"

The page name should probably be changed, because the current name is "Mooney Aviation Company" ...
Enquire (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

History

Some material in the history section has been based on information I added earlier to the Mooney M20 article, with modifications. All material is sourced. Omnedon (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Cardin' Harmon

I've rv'd the add of the info on Harmon's career, because it's irrelevant to the company. It may be important to Harmon himself, but it is of no moment to Mooney, & thus, doesn't belong. I really don't care how little it is; off-topic, IMO, is off-topic. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not off-topic or irrelevant because it demonstrates the interconnectedness that exists in the aviation industry and shows the experience that Harmon, an important figure in Mooney history, brought to the company. A single sentence describing his experience with a few other companies adds to the value of the article, not subtracts. Omnedon (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's off topic. You want to show interconnectedness? The fact he worked at Cessna, Beech, & McDonnell is still there, because I happen to agree that is relevant. What projects he worked on is irrelevant except to him or his page. The other a/c Harmon worked on is no more on point here than the fact Mel Brooks directed "Blazing Saddles" & "Young Frankenstein" to the "Silent Movie" page--unless there is an influence of one on the other. So, unless you can demonstrate, with sources, that Harmon's work on the other projects actually affected the design of any Mooney aircraft, it's trivia & should be deleted. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not off-topic, it's a question of slightly different scope. Showing that he headed the design of the Beechcraft Model 35, which was in a similar space to the Mooney M20, communicates something useful to the reader about this Mooney designer, and certainly that work would have influenced his work on the Mooney. I don't understand the animus that seems to be present here. I'm trying to bring this article up to a better state, and some of your edits have helped -- but this attitude isn't helping. Omnedon (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Beech 35 is in "a similar space"? Fine. Show me how his work on the 35 affected the M20, with sourcing. Show me how his work at McDonnell or Cessna affected anything at Mooney. Leave my "attitude" out of it. Better still, write a bio page for him & put it there, where you can discuss his career, instead of trying to jam it on the Mooney company page, which is not the biography of Harmon, contrary to what you seem to believe. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not being "jammed in". It's a single sentence describing his background that helps establish context. This information is in the source and is relevant to Mooney development. Your comparison with Mel Brooks is quite absurd; Harmon helped developed one plane, then another, then another. You can't argue that at each stage he somehow started over and forgot everything he had learned. Omnedon (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"You can't argue that at each stage he somehow started over and forgot everything he had learned." Where am I doing that? In any fashion? I'm saying the details of Harmon's career are not Mooney Aircraft business, they are his. What part of that do you not understand? And now, you want details of his career for "context", unable to show how his work on any other project you mention actually influenced his work at Mooney. Which, if you'd been paying attention, was the point of the Brooks reference: unless his earlier work actually influences the later film, & you have sourcing that says so, mention of it on the later film page is irrelevant. So, too, Harmon's earlier work. What part of that is unclear to you? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You're saying that unless a specific source says that his earlier work affected his later work, then the earlier work can't even be mentioned. There is no policy basis for this. Harmon designed planes, one after another, and naturally he gained experience each time which was applied later. Noting those earlier planes is not trivial nor is it off-topic. On a separate note, please be civil. You've come into this with an uncivil tone from the very beginning and it is only getting worse. Omnedon (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"You're saying that unless a specific source says that his earlier work affected his later work" No, I'm not. I'm saying, you need to have sources that demonstrate his work on the projects you want included have influence on projects at Mooney.

♠As for civility, what I'm hearing from you is, you haven't got a good argument, so you want to shut me up by accusing me of being uncivil. Go ahead. Make the charge. I really don't give a damn anymore. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already given you the argument. His earlier airplane design work did have an influence on his later airplane design work, which you cannot deny. It shows a design connection with other earlier planes. All I'm trying to do here is to improve this article and have added a lot of information to it, fixed a lot of issues with it, and added a lot of citations, but like all Wikipedia articles, it can always use more improvement and is a work in progress. You came along and made some helpful tweaks, as I acknowledged on your talk page. But this one part of your edit removes helpful information for no good reason based in any policy of which I'm aware. What I'm hearing from you is that you don't care about civility, nor do you have any good reason to exclude this material. Omnedon (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

♠"His earlier airplane design work did have an influence on his later airplane design work, which you cannot deny." Where am I denying the influence?!! You've now made my argument for me, & you still can't see the flaw in yours: his work. It is germane to a bio of him, not to a history of Mooney.

♠"good reason based on policy"? I've told you & told you, but you refuse to see it, too busy making out I'm saying things I'm not & being impenetrable to reason. You, on the other hand, keep coming back to Harmon & ignoring the fact this is not Harmon's page.

♠Civility? No, I don't care if you want to call frustration "uncivil" & make a charge it is. Clearly, you're reading in what you want it to say, rather than what it says, just as you are on Harmon. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)