Talk:Phoenix Air Phoenix

Removal of cited text

User:Stardustvoyages has now repeatedly removed text from this article that is cited to the reliable source cited: Bayerl, Robby; Martin Berkemeier; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2011-12, page 135. WDLA UK, Lancaster UK, 2011. ISSN 1368-485X

That source says: "Phoenix Air is led by Martin Stepaneck, formerly of the defunct Urban Air, so it is no surprise to find that this beautiful two-seat composite ultralight glider is an evolution of Urban Air’s well-liked Lambada. Uniquely, its span can be reduced from 15m to 11m in just 60s, turning it into a microlight with a 240km/h cruise. We detail it here with an 80hp Rotax and a parachute, but a 60hp HKS 700E is optional, in which form the glide ratio rises to 35 and the price drops to 70,700 euros. An even more efficient electric version is being developed. With a Rotax 912S, it can be used as a tug."

You can't just remove cited information like that with out at least citing a new source that says differently and then engaging in a discussion here to de-conflict the sources. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Ahunt, we hope this is where we comment. :)

Note: Stardust is the Wiki name for James Lee, the Designated Manufacturer's Representative for Phoenix Air s.r.o.

We were alerted to the erroneous Wiki report by an interested party who told us the report cited a 95square meter wing area. When we looked at the report, we felt that a few minor corrections were in order.

Here is basis for the corrections in the Wiki report. We tried to alter the report as little as possible from the original text. (Citing a magazine article does not necessarily make it fact). Unfortunately, the current issue of World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2012-13 shows a photo of our Phoenix as being a Lambada built by Distar! We are not very happy with this magazine.

The actual Wiki text states that the Phoenix is a "derivative" of the Urban air Lambada. It is actually a clean sheet design. Other than the fact that every aircraft is a derivative of all of the aircraft that came before it, can the Wiki statement be made. Experts can look down the glider line-up of different designs by different companies, and name the gliders. Non experts look down the line-up and think that they all are the same, as dictated by clean aerodynamics for drag reduction. As builders of the Phoenix, we resent the comparison with the Lambada.

Here are some key differences:

The Phoenix is carbon fiber, the Lambada (currently built by Distar) is fiberglass. The Phoenix has a different fuselage shape, different wings, and the noted change out wingtips of vastly differing lengths. The Phoenix has a larger cockpit that fits tall people.

No Phoenix has ever been built with an HKS engine. One Phoenix was built with a Jabiru engine, but with less favorable results, hence it will not be offered any longer. Only the Rotax 912UL and 912ULS engines are offered.

The electric Phoenix was built for a NASA efficiency race, but was not entered in the race. It is not available for sale, and is not under development.

The sales price of the Phoenix is 83,500eur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardustvoyages (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here. First off I have no way to confirm who you are and if you do indeed represent the manufacturer you need to read WP:COI, stop editing the article and instead suggest changes here on the talk page for editors who are not in a conflict of interest to consider for inclusion.

The wing area error was due to a templating problem. In checking both WDLA and the manufacturer's website there is no wing area figure given so that has been removed and therefore fixed.

The second problem is that all we have is one reliable reference cited. Now it may well contain errors, but we can't change cited material just on your say-so, without a new verifiable reference. The manufacturer's website contains no useful information on this subject. If they want to correct errors in the WDLA then the best solution is to post a page on the manufacturer's website that addresses these questions and states that it is a clean sheet design etc, then we can fix up the article on the basis of citing that ref instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)