This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lancair Evolution article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Are the performance figures for cruise and Vne correct? I've checked the website and they match the manufacturer's specs but how can the cruise speed be higher than the never exceed speed? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.123.174.207 (
talk)
13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)reply
220 max speed, 295 never exceed speed and ... 350 cruise speed ! no sense ! even with different standards... drlivingstone - 12 june 2020 - 18:27 (France) - — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.120.143.61 (
talk)
No, the performance figures are not correct. I've seen your home page,
Ahunt. Great work on the many vehicles! In this case, however, please refer to the Manufacturer's specifications tables for the correct figures, keeping in mind the fact there are four models of the Evolution, including a piston and three turbine horsepower classes:
https://www.evolutionaircraft.com/aircraft/evolution-turbine/ Also, remember that both the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards use "kt" and not "kn." Meteorological weather information for both winds aloft as well as the movement of weather systems as reported to all pilots is also given in knots, usually spelling out "knots," but occasionally using "kts" for the abbreviation. Thank you.
Clepsydrae (
talk)
05:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay, thanks for the updated link. Fixed Just to avoid any confusion I used just that one ref and re-sourced all the specs from scratch, although only a few had changed. You can note that on Wikipedia we do not use "kt" for "knot" as it is confused with the SI unit "kt" for "kilotonne". We use the SI abbreviation for knots, which is "kn". It is hardwired into the template, so cannot be changed. -
Ahunt (
talk)
17:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I second this the performance figures should be given in IAS as TAS is situation dependent and not the standard for aircraft performance metrics.
The Proccy (
talk)
13:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It is normal to report cruising speed in TAS, as if it was in IAS that would not be useful at all, plus IAS cruise speeds are usually not available in the refs anyway. Other speeds, such as stall speed are always in IAS. This is just reality in the world of aviation. There should be no confusion, as these are clearly marked in the specs for this article. -
Ahunt (
talk)
14:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Apoligies upon further reading i concur with the TAS Staement. With so many articles with so little standardization it can be hard to rember what the correct system is.
The Proccy (
talk)
12:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Infobox Image - fake?
The image on this page looks like it's been taken from a computer game, not a photo. There's no sign of the pilot in the cockpit and it just... doesn't look at all real. Does anyone else agree?
TZHX (
talk)
13:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
A quick look at it does indeed show that it is a fake and a very poorly done one too! Unless there is any really good reason to keep it it should be removed from the article. -
Ahunt (
talk)
15:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply