Talk:Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

I removed text that was exactly the same as text at http://www.heliaust.com.au/piper.html . If there was permission for us to use and modify this text under terms of our license then please indicate so here. --mav

The information you removed was basically factual information, available from many sources.The text referenced above is NOT authoritative nor has any explicit copyright. In fact, I didn't use it. I used another source of information, which also did not have copyright limitations.

Also, I disagree with your insertion about the "notoriety" -- it was NOT the airplane that became notorious; in fact, it was Kennedy the pilot who became notorious, because of his relative lack of IFR/nigh-VFR training.

What is appropriate content for Wikipedia -- factual information, available from many sources, or opinionated information, such as might be available from uninformed media? --[[User::Alan Stebbens|Alan]]

Whether or not the information is factual has zero bearing on whether or not the text was copyrighted. Information can not be copyrighted but the artistic expression of the information in text is automatically copyrighted when it is written. In fact an author must explicitly give-up copyright in order to have the text placed in the public domain. Please feel free to rewrite the text in your own words (sic your own artistic expression) and re-add the information. BTW all I did was delete the offending paragraphs. Check the article history for the person who inserted the passage you are talking about. --mav

I updated this page with some information I gleaned from my own knowledge as well as the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for the PA-32 series. However, I believe that this page and the Piper Saratoga page should be combined. It is the same series of aircraft except for fixed vs. retractable gear, and there was even a fixed-gear version of the Saratoga.

I'll add more info on the retract PA32R's at the Saratoga page as well, but I'd prefer that it all be merged onto this page.

I agree that the two pages should be combined. Have a look at Beechcraft Musketeer for an example of this - that page includes the fixed gear Musketeers and the retractable Sierras and it works well like that Ahunt 09:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate specs

User:65.254.173.116 recently added a second set of specs for the 1966 model PA-32-260 to the existing set of 1972 model PA-32-300 specs already in this article. As per WikiProject Aircraft guidelines articles usually only have one representative set of specs for an aircraft type and not multiple specs for multiple variants, since this is an encyclopedia and not Janes. Is there any reason to have two sets of almost identical specs? - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to say no. I'd put any differences in the model summaries, where they're really significant (& a couple of knots on V_max or V_ref don't make it, IMO). Otherwise, take it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lacking any reason for duplicating he specs I will remove them. Note to anyone tempted to put the duplicate back in: Please discuss and provide a justification here first. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 65.254.173.116 (AKA ensminger@yahoo.com) included these because they were very difficult for me to find. There are significant differences to the purchaser of one of these aircraft in terms of useful load and performance. I felt the side-by-side comparison would be useful if some referenced wikipedia early in the decision making process. I would not have included the comparable airframe size specs but I am not familiar with html code and did not know how to just include the differences. I was also not aware that there were so many rules to submission and will refrain from submitting again because it ended up being a waste of my time. I noticed ahunt that you were working with a link for fantasy air allegro on the talk boards. I am an owner of one of these as well and if you need any reference info please feel free to contact me by email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.110.218 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really isn't intended to be a buyer's guide for prospective purchasers, otherwise you would want specs from each year and price comparisons, etc. There are many publications and websites that are better equipped for that sort of thing. That said, if you think there are significant differences then these should be mentioned in the section in the article dealing with that specific model, rather than adding a second set of specs. Thanks for the thought on the Allegro. I have an extensive pilot report article that I had published a few years ago and also about 100 photos, too, so I should be able to expand it significantly as soon as I have a chance to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer Minuano.

There appears to be an Embraer 720 Minuano more or less based on the PA-32 - is it a license build or a further development? (illustration: http://www.centrohistoricoembraer.com.br/pt-BR/HistoriaAeronaves/Paginas/EMB-720-Minuano.aspx ) Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fatal accident Piper PA-32-260 I am not sure where to put it.

Five foreign tourists killed in plane crash in Honduras The Piper PA-32-260 plane was headed to the tourist port city of Trujillo, about 80 kilometers (49.71 miles) from Roatan https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/five-foreign-tourists-killed-in-plane-crash-in-honduras-3992001.html Geo8rge (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The normal way would be to add a chapter, after the "Variants" chapter but before the "Specifications". However in this particular case the accident might be considered non-noteworthy by some; perhap think twice before adding it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable, there have been hundreds of accidents like this in this aircraft type, so we don;t add them all. For the inclusion criteria see WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't notable enough to have an article to itself. But as a mention in the plane type's article I am not so sure, are there no precedents? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is all explained at WP:AIRCRASH. Basically light aircraft accidents are daily occurrences globally, so we only include ones in which notable people are killed (i.e. has a bio on Wikipedia and not just notable for being killed in the accident) or if the accident results systemic changes, like airworthiness directives, changes in ATC procedures or similar. Otherwise we don't list "garden variety" crashes as there are too many and there is nothing to be learned from most of them (most are "repeat" accidents). If we did add all crashes this article would have several hundred of them. The Cessna 172 and Piper Cherokee would have many thousands. It is very much like the automoble articles. If you check Ford Mustang, you won't see any accidents mentioned. Probably over a million Mustangs have been crashed and that makes individual ones not notable. It is the same with light aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]