Talk:Raptor Aircraft Raptor

This article

The article is about a proposed aircraft built by an unknown company and designed by an un-named designer. Furthermore there are no third party refs, just refs from the company itself. This doesn't meet WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) at all. Unless some third party refs can be added this should really be sent to WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors can note that a discussion about the future of this article has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Raptor_Aircraft_Raptor. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The first I heard of this project was on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLY59_jImLc I am aware YouTube is not an acceptable source for WP, but following it may lead to "notable" third party sources. Arrivisto (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

All the sources I can find, like that video, Facebook and so on all trace to the company. We need to find some third party refs to keep this article. I can't find any myself after a few searches. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrivisto (talk · contribs) has just added a ref, but it is only a pre-announcement - no indicator of notability, I am afraid. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I just formatted that ref. Unfortunately it is just a reproduced press release from the company, so not a third party ref. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

With the latest refs added I think we can just remove the notability tag. Once the aircraft flies it should get quite a bit of press coverage in the aviation media. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I note the adjective "advanced" has been deleted as WP:PEACOCK. Given that it is a kitplane, a class which includes ultra-basic aircraft which might have been designed 100 years ago, I reckon "advanced" is a correct description. Let's call a spade a spade; a Swift rather than a Peacock! Arrivisto (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like a marketing claim to me, although I couldn't even see on the company web page where they use that word to describe it. To use a word like "advanced" to describe an aircraft you would need to cite a third party ref (such as a review) that labels it "advanced" and a clear indication of what that meant. It does not have advanced STOL capabilities or advanced passenger capacity and it is darn right slow compared to some homebuilts like the Sport Jet II. The use of that term needs a third party ref and some qualification as to what it is referring to. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Muller's YouTube blogs

A major source of information on the design of the Raptor and on its testing programme is the series of regular YouTube Vlogs by Peter Muller, the designer and (pro tem) test pilot. Is there any way that Wikipedia can accept reference to these as sources? Arrivisto (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. These are WP:PRIMARY, so can be used for factual information on the design, but not opinion. So fine for information on flight testing progress, or empty weight, top speed, or construction time, etc, but not for "this is the best aircraft ever" stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Prototype crash 2020-10-07

An IP editor entered that the prototype was crashed on its first flight today. I removed it, as I could not find any refs at all on it, even on the aviation media sites or NTSB. That said something does seem to have happened on a first flight attempt, was sort of caught on the control tower video and is being discussed on aviation forums (which are not WP:RS, of course). I am hoping the aviation media or some news outlet will report the story so it can be added back into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay the flight video has been posted and it seems that the reports of a crash by the OP were exaggerated. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Development costs funding

I just removed the claim that the cost of developing the aircraft were being funded by the buyer's deposits held in escrow. I removed it for two reasons: 1. because even the archived company web page does not say that and 2. it does not make any logical sense. Money in escrow is held by a third party and cannot be used. The aircraft developer has no access to it, which is the point. We actually have no information on how the developer is funding development, but if anyone can locate that information it would be a useful addition to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tense in the article

The aircraft prototype still exists, even though it has been damaged, so it is still referred to in the present tense. The development has ended, so the goals and plans are referred to in past tense. If the aircraft prototype is scrapped or cannibalized for parts for a future design then the tense referring to the aircraft can be changed to "past". If it is rebuilt or turning into a museum display it will stay as "present", since it still exists. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)