Talk:Pilatus PC-24/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for sources

I have tagged the article with a request for sources. Of course, the more good sources the better but it is mainly directed at the section "Operational history". The Banner talk 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. Those claims had been unsourced and tagged for 8 months, so I removed them. They can be put back in with proper sources. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

First engine run

It is completely not relevant. Every single motor and every single motor type gets tested on the workbench before it comes close to a plane. A configuration is thoroughly tested before a plane even comes out of the hangar. So the engine run is nothing more than "let us make some noise in front of an audience". The Banner talk 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes every engine get tested first on the workbench and has a first run before it get build in an aircraft. But even after this a even if it is not a new engine , if its just back from the maintenance and is build in the exactly same aircraft. A engine testrun on the ground is normal (I have chanched a few F-5E engines (GE J-85) to knew this). Well such standart engine testruns are nothing special for an aircraft who is in service since some time. But in the history of an aircraft type the roll out, the first engine run, the first high speed taxiing and the first flight are something special. "let us make some noise in front of an audience" its in the case of the PC-24 not quit right because there was no audience, and the reason was not to made noise but to thest the proper work of the combination of aircraft and engine ( respond of the engine of on the Pilots inputs, are the instrument readings in the Cockpit correct to the Engineparameter and so one. How ever I look forward to the first flight of the PC-24.FFA P-16 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:The Banner, announcements of the first engine run are essentially PR exercises and thus WP:TRIVIA and don't belong here. The benchmark that should be reported is "first flight", when it happens. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Regristration is now also on the FOCA Homepage as Special Category: Experimental All first Prototypes of an Pilatus aircraft type have a regristration who never again is used for an other aircraft. See HB-AEP. HB-AET HB-KOA,... Rferences for the planed first flight are given (FOCA & 2 newspaper).FFA P-16 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding the announcement of the first flight? The field in the info box clearly states: If this hasn't happened, skip this field!. With other words: when the plan has not actually made its first flight, keep this field empty. So you vague predictions ""May 2015" should be left out. The Banner talk 12:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

But we have the refrenc that the flight is in May also from the FOCA. Some people are may interested when the first flight is planed. The insert you talking of was not from the begining ther it was add later.

This an encyclopaedia, not an events-calender. And there is not even e fixed date. The Banner talk 16:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As per the hidden template note this is normally left blank if there has not yet been a first flight. This expected date can be mentioned in the article text, under "development", though, as long as it is sourced to a WP:RS and it is made clear that it is a forecast. We commonly do this in aircraft type articles and even indicate changes in the first flight forecast date to indicate when a project has slipped. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Regristration of Pilatus Aircraft Prototypes

the Reg of the Prototype is notable also you can clearly see on the FOCA Page :"Special Category: Experimental" Like i said before The regristration is also aviatic history the regristrations of Pilatus Prototypes are only used on them and get not reused on a new aircraft.. se SB-2 HB-AEP, P-4 HB-AET, PC-8 HB-KOA, PC-9 HB-HPA, PC-12 HB-FOA,.. so thy are from aviatichistoric interest.May some people are lucky to find them here so they can use it to search for more informations outside of wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be of interest to an "aviatichistoric" website but not for an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations does allow the use of registrations for prototypes, which is why I formatted it when you added it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the guidelines did permit registrations in this case, but on first flights the guidelines are clear. Nevertheless, FFA's incessant edit warring every time something he adds is removed is getting very tedious, and is verging on being tendentious. He seems to think whatever he adds should remain because it's about a Swiss aircraft, and thus somehow important, never mind what the guidelines or practices on other aircraft articles. He's been editing on WP long enough to know better than to edit war, yet this behavior continues on almost every article he edits. The next time this happens, even in this article, I'm going to pursue sanctions for edit warring. This sort of behavior needs to stop, and if he can't restrain himself, we will help him, up to seeking a block or ban on English WP. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You should look up his Dutch talkpage. Interesting reading... The Banner talk 23:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising! Facepalm Even not being able to read Dutch, it's quite obvious. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ehm, except the header everything is in English. The Banner talk 23:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, the header. - BilCat (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

for me it looks like more that some of you want to suppress informations about swiss aviatic topics.

Longer than since the 31.Jan.2015 By the Date for the first flight was written :"forecast for early 2015". So I mad this more precice in adding the month and gave also 3 references of this (One the FOCA!) It is interesting the "forecast for early 2015" was not a problem for such a long time and then when i give a more precise date its wrong???.. How ever this problem will b solved soon, after the first flight.

Also for the Regristration, I explaned why i had put it in and gave also the ref to the FOCA register and had pointed out the :"Special Category: Experimental" But you removed it ignoring my informations and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. I still in the opinion that we should have the HB- VXA in the text, but because of BilCat's threat I an't do it. for me it looks like more that some of you want to suppress informations about swiss aviatic topics. Sometimes it feels also like bully me. For example the whol thing with the F/A-18 Solodisplay Team who was deleted with the argument that ther is no place for single aircraft how teams...so the article about the F/A-18 Solo display team was deleted.. interesting that this two still exist Solo Türk & F-16 Demo Team.

I am working on swiss aviatic topics and swiss military topic, i often can get news in this topics fast and sometimes can get informations from first hand .Often it has very little information in wikipedia and that is a pity. I think it is better to provide more information. Only reading what is of interested for you is easier than asearch for informations that are not available on wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Clueless. Absolutely clueless. More's the pity. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:FFA P-16 - Your ability to express yourself in English is so poor that it is almost impossible to understand what you write. I think it would be much more constructive for everyone if you worked on the Wikipedia in a language you actually read and write. Also you need to stop edit warring all the time to insert text that no one else supports inserting. You need to use the talk pages instead to gain consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

FFA, the difficult thing is not finding info but determining what is relevant and what is not. The way you edit indicates a Conflict of Interest and certainly a lack of competence. The last thing mainly on your English (I know mine is not superb too) and in the balancing act between relevant information versus irrelevant information. The Banner talk 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OK you all have a point, and yes My enligsh is bad. Therfore i try to go down to put in minor informations and no more big textparts. Yes sometimes i should be more patience and sometimes its not easy for me to write down my ideas in a way that you understand it. In the case of the regristration of the PC-24 Prototype I had tryed to explain why i had put it in, but BilCat & The Banner you two have not observed this. please understand not as a personal attack. My question to you two is Why should we not put in the "HB-VXS" If this will stay ever as regristration for the very first PC-24 and it is total conform with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations, we talk her about just one sentesn in the PC-24 page. How ever I would prefer to have HB-VXS but .. if you not agree :-(

The other thing what I try to say is that is that I have the feeling that there is an unfair treatment. I still never get a answer (the question goes to The Banner and (I think it was also you) BilCat, Why do you say it should not exist a page about the F / A-18 Hornet Solo Display but exist on about the Solo Türk & F-16 Demo Team ? Can you understand that this looks not fair to me? Can you give me a reason for this? I am not joking I realy would like to knew your honest justification. Thank you.

Because you do not agree with the expected first flight, I'll report as soon as the first flight took place. Wish you all a nice week end. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The Banner talk 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you said there is no place for an articel about the Super Puma Display and the F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display Team because in the English Wikipedia is no place for singel aircraft Teams.. so we have 2 english wikipedia ruls who contradict?FFA P-16 (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

7 days ;-)

FFA P-16 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Every article is judged on its own merits. And every piece of info on its own relevancy The Banner talk 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

we will have enough relevancy in 7 days  ;-) FFA P-16 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

11.May 2015 08:00- 09:00 UTC (10:00-11:00 LT — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFA P-16 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, you finally have an excuse to put this in. Are you happy now? The Banner talk 10:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

why should this bee an excuse? i knew it more than a week ago, but now i have also brought the ref. Yes I am happy, who would be not happy if an aircraft has his first flight? FFA P-16 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Gulfstream, Cessna, Bombardier, et al. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat, yes that is clear. But i was not talking about other companys, but ordinary people. And i dont think that the people from Pilatus are unhappy if a prototyp from Cessna, Bombardier or so one has his first flight... could also bee a motivation to work harder and create an aircraft who could top this. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

First flight of second prototype

From a standpoint of encyclopedic notability, the first flight of a second prototype is a complete non-event. Sourced or otherwise, there is simply no significance to it. Scr★pIron^IV 13:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:
If in an encyclopedia shouldn't be these things, then what informations are importants for Wikipedia?--The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Actual accomplishments. Notable firsts, milestones. Real achievements, not common every day occurrences, and certainly not corporate press releases and photo ops. See WP:NOTNEWS for a start. Scr★pIron^IV 16:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV You say Notable firsts, milestones. Not common every day occurrences. Well the first flight of a prototype is a milestone. It is not a every day thing. It was also the first flight of two PC-24 together (3 Ship formation of PC-24 P01 HB-VXA [1], PC-24 P02 HB-VXB[2] and a Pilatus PC-21).It is already differend to the first Prototype, it has not the noseprobe, Sensorwindwo and differend dooropening. The refrence was NOT a press realase of Pilatus(switzerland) it was from Fliegerrevue (germany), as on the Fliegerrevue was no picture of the HB-VXA I add the ref photo, who also is not made by Pilatus. You can finde now pictures and Youtube clips of the First flight who are not made by Pilatus but from aviaticfans. I would say first flights of prototypes and the delivery of the first serial aircraft are milestons. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't cut it. It is not the first prototype, there are always changes in subsequent aircraft. Oh! The first time it flew in formation! WOW! Again, might deserve a mention in a flight news magazine, but completely inconsequential for an encyclopedia. Not noteworthy; purely fancruft. Scr★pIron^IV 18:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

But this Page is about the PC-24 not any other ac. And in the whol PC-24 every first flight of a prototype is a milestone.. there is not a endles line of protoypes. the PC-24 program will have total 3 Prototypes. And no it is not a usual thing that a prototype on its first flight not only fly with his chaseplane (in this case the PC-21) AND with the first prototype. a encyclopedia should cover such events and not just be hint that the PC-24 exist.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia should not cover such trivial events. Have you ever actually read one? I have. An encyclopedia is not filled with trivial, unconstructive, and fanboy nonsense. I love aircraft as much as the next person, but too much detail is too much detail. Scr★pIron^IV 19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have. But it is a big differend between first flights of prototypes I only talk about the first flight, and not from all the other flights who follows. It is part of the history of the PC-24 programm, and the History is a part of an wikipedia page.we don't fill the article with much, it's justv a short sentens from the first flight of each prototype. I must say Informations about aircraft are here very poor.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The two aircraft have different test purposes. That is notable, if flight of P2 is not. However, test schedules can be very different; contrast with AW609 - it's not a uniform process. Btw, paper encyclopediæ have restrictions on content due to resources. An online encyclopedia does not have that particular restriction, and can freely include all notable events - whichever threshold that may be. TGCP (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We talking here just about to have the date of the first flight of P01, P02 and in future the first flight of P03 written here, That is not much. And if we have a look to other aircraft.. ther is often one two sentens about not only the first Prototype .. looks like there are here for the PC-24 very strict laws but for others not.. Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052,.. FFA P-16 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Scr★pIron^IV 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not having the same law for all is also not encyclopedic, if we can't have here informations about the prototypes, you have to delet this also out on other pages. or we can just put this page also tooWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then is no need to delet the information about P02 out. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the first flight of the second prototype is not notable. Neither is the first flight of the third prototype, nor the second flight of the fourth prototype.... It is all WP:TRIVIA and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is talking about a second flight of any prototype. Its about the first flight. and there will be no fourth prototype!FFA P-16 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:ScrapIronIV, @User:FFA P-16 if the first flight isn't important for an encyclopedia, also in a lot of aircraft's pages you can delate all information about first flight?
I think NO and also why you can delate article about PC-24's first flight?--The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The first flight of the first prototype should be mentioned. Subsequent flights of subsequent prototypes are not significant. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

RFDS confirmed as launch customer

The Royal Flying Doctors Service of Australia is promoting their position as the global launcher partner with Pilatus.

So far they've been confirmed as operating out of WA (Jandicot Airfield, YPJT) and Adelaide (Adelaide Int, YPAD). There are current at least 4 on order in the 2017-2018 delivery block with 2 more reserved in the future after. Sources: http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/03/rfds-buys-pilatus-pc-24-for-adelaide-based-central-operations/ https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/about-the-rfds/our-fleet/ http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2015/03/02/4189519.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/rfds-gets-funding-for-new-hangar/7212426 58.160.128.139 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Numbers Built per 07.03.2017

There are now 3 Pilatus PC-24. P01 (HB-VXA) P02 (HB-VXB) and P03 (HB-VSA). The 3rd Prototyp/ pre production aircraft had his first flight on the morning of 06. March 2017. see here: [3][4] [5] FFA P-16 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And? Why would that be of interest? The Banner talk 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Go look at the article history.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner, Because we have the "Infobox Aircraft" on the Page, and in the Aircraft Infobox we have the line "Number built".. at here is written 2..FFA P-16 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And when you look at the description at Template:Infobox aircraft begin you can see that they are talking about production numbers, as in aircraft built for delivery. Not prototypes. The Banner talk 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner, sorry I can not see such an statment/rule. Usualy this count is for all build aircraft, prototypes and serial production together. If prototypes would not count the YF-17 , F-20, Tu-116, Tu-110, and so one would have a 0.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Payload-range diagram

There is no consensus for including the endless performance graphs published in one place or another. There is a current discussion at the Aircraft WikiProject. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Number of built PC-24

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus here is that the IP is a sockpuppet of User:FFA P-16, who is an indefinitely blocked user, and not allowed to contribute to or participate in any discussions on Wikipedia. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Pilatus has in 2018 an Output of 1 Pc-24 in every two weeks. So today (10. February 2018) there are 3 prototypes and 3 serial PC-24. One is already delivered to Plansense, the next one is going to Austria soon. So the number (5) in the Box ist wrong.178.197.239.205 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable reference that more than five have flown ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Only aircraft who fly have hot a Mod-S (HB-VSC. 4929867 / 4b394b). Also the Box days Numbers built, not Numbers flown...otherwise you have to Change a lot of them..(M-52....). With an o·utput of 1 Pc-24 every two weeks, the FOCA List ist reliable...Btw flightradar24 when the AC is Airborne.178.197.225.217 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.bazl.admin.ch/bazl/de/home/fachleute/luftfahrzeuge/luftfahrzeugregister.html only shows five. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahnung. Yes BAZL /FOCA Shows "only" 5 , 5 because HB-VSB is No more there. Because HB-VSB is now N124AF of Plansense... In the ref i gave it was clear to See that HB-VSB is now N124AF.178.197.225.217 (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:FFA P-16, please... The Banner talk 18:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You may be right there, that is a Swiss IP address. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like him to me too. Block per DUCK. - BilCat (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When aircraft are in series production then the number of aircraft flown is used in the infobox. The reference you quote shows the number of aircraft registered (which doesnt include N124AF) and a problem is that aircraft can be registered before they are actually built. So we are still looking for a reliable reference that more than five have actually been built and flown, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The FOCA List is ONLY for real build aircraft. HB-VSD is airworthy. I gave the additional reference that HB-VSB is now N124AF, but YOU milborneOne deleted it. Your Point is not valid. Also Not vevery build B747 keep her "N" reg. Lufthansa B747 get a "D" reg and so one...178.197.225.217 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that most manufacturers register the aircraft on the assembly line long before they have been flown or even built, in some cases, so that they can be painted with the registration on. I have been in some factories where the jigs being used have the registration already assigned, but the aircraft hasn't even been started yet. Where this really causes issues is when a manufacturer registers unfinished aircraft and then goes out of business and the aircraft are never completed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ahunt. But this is the List from the FOCA (goverment of civil aviation), not from Pilatus Aircraft. Also HB-VSD has (Like you can see in its entry in the FOCA List) His Transponder hexacode / Mod-S Code. This Code is unique to every civil aircraft who is airworthy.178.197.225.217 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

P-16 the code is issued when an aircraft is registered, it doesnt have to be airworthy or even exist. (Also note FR24 shows no activity from the code allocated to VSD which you would expect if it has flown). MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This is why we generally only used reliable, published secondary sources on Wikipedia. Attempting to determine how many aircraft have flown by adding up registration numbers is pure Original Research. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but there IS a entry in flightradar24 for HB-VSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.231.160 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user FFA P-16 is back and appears not have a read any of the comments here, the FOCA website doesnt support the number-built. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nö, the foca List is ONLY for airworthy aircraft. The FOCA List does Not contain aircraft under construction, unfinished aircraft , and definitiv No Not yet existing aircraft... Or can you Show ne the Not yet build aprox. 80 ordered Pc-24 in the FOCA List? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.234.137 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry P-16 you are blocked user and should not really be editing here, I suspect you will be blocked soon, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users and deliveries

Moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste

[moved from my talk page where it was less relevant--Marc Lacoste (talk)] 12:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Good day dear Marc. I like to ask you a few questions in relation to the PC-24.If it does not bother you. Why did you skip the Swiss Air Force as PC-24 user?. The last ref given to this was published on 7. November 2018 and says " will be delivered in December 2018 to the Schweizer Luftwaffe." Well now we have the 16. Jannuary 2019. And if you use flightradrar24 you can see that this PC-24 is already airborn, not with the Pilatus callsign (PCH) but with the Swiss Air Force callsign (SUI) /SUI121 actualy today it was flying from a Swiss Air Force Air Base to Geneva International Airport [6]. Halbrahm aber voll (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as indicated in the edit summary: removed Swiss Air Force (2014 ref: order not operator), the ref given was from Aug 2014 not Nov 2018 for an order not a delivery, and using a ADS-B tracker and making conclusions on callsigns is speculation, not a solid report. I think the delivery of a swiss jet to the swiss AF is worth a story in reliable sources, you can find one. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC) (english refs are preferred when available, you never know what the autotranslate is going to do. I don't speak german but i speak french to vouch for a tribunedegeneve ref)

My second question is: The infobox says "Number built" so there should be the total number of actual buid aircraft. But you add "delivered" tis is not usual (see for eg.[7],[8],.. Why? That gives no correct number. All aircraft owned by Pilatus are not counted (Prototypes and aircraft rented by Pilatus). Thank you for your attention of my questions. I wish you a nice day.Halbrahm aber voll (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In production aircraft never have the correct number because it's always expanding, so a number delivered is a minimum. If you have a reliable ref for the number of prototypes (never delivered after, this can happen), it can be placed next. But avoid WP:OR like it was done before and reverted, as explained above. As the article is often disrupted on these subjects, extra care is necessary for ref quality, but nothing impossible. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dera Marc, thank you for your asnswer. Of course it is possible to check the data of flightradar against the data of, for example, ADSB flight tracker. About the prototypes: Since Pilatus is from German-speaking Switzerland, the details of the prototypes are almost exclusively in German. This reference writes and displays images of all three prototypes. P01 HB-VXA, P02 HB-VXB and P03 HB-VSA. All three are still in operation at Pilatus Aircraft. [9]. The prototypes have the serial numbers P01 to P03. The production aircraft serial numbers start with 101 (for ex HB-VSB, now N124AF), 102, 103, 104 ..128, 129. It is possible to check this on the following page.[10] You have to select "Include deregistered aircraft". Open Advanced search and enter PC24 for "ICAO Aircraft Type". Then follow the currently 32 entries. If you click on an entry, for example HB-VLX [11], the (production)number can be seen under "Serial Number". If there is "Status: deregistered", the aircrat got his new owners Registration HB-VSB -> N124AF, HB-VPN [12] to T-786 [13]. I hope that everything is clear about the prototypes Halbrahm aber voll (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Making conclusion from registry records is still WP:OR.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree, all it indicates is how many are actually registered in any particular country. Also you should not assume that serial numbers are consecutive and all are used, it is not always the case. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Picture of a Swiss Air Force PC-24

What is the point to use a picture of the Swiss Air Force PC-24 with the short time used predeliver reg HB-VPN? Should we not use a picture with the actual, longtime (Mil) reg T-786?Alpha Eco (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is to use the best photos to illustrate the aircraft. If good photos of all the users exist, then we use as many as we can reasonably fit in the article. In this case, the photos of the Swiss Air Force aren't that good (too many shadows, and poor quality), and really aren't suitable to the article. Add to that the fact they were uploaded by a user banned on English Wikipedia, and we have a good case for leaving the photos out of the article. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Compared to the photos of other aircraftarticle I could not determine a quality disadvantage, but simply average. I think it is appropriate to use a average picture with the correct registration as a good one with a registration that no longer exists. I just wanted to point that out. Okay so the pictures are from a blocked user. If he is blocked he can not do a mess anymore. But if he has left good or unique pictures we can still use this pictures. Exclude this images has no benefit for wikipedia,nor for the reader.

That's just my two cents... Have the honor, byeAlpha Eco (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

main picture

The current is interesting to show the aircraft config with its 3/4 view, but shows a prototype with a probe, not really reflecting that it's in operation now, and has a mountainous background and poor grey light, at the expense of clarity. There are not many pictures in commons right now. HB-VSA may be too much from below and is in dull light. T-786 has good light and background, but flies away from the text and is a bland side pic. OY-TWO is a bland side pic with dull light and background.

• 
  current
• 
  HB-VSA
• 
  T-786
• 
  OY-TWO

Other thoughts?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the current one is the best of the bunch. Hopefully we'll get some better ones before too long. BilCat (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The currecnt photo is in my opinion the best of the photos shown here. It shows most of the plane. The Banner talk 10:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree the the current one is the best we have so far! With 100 jets now flying hopefully we will get some better ones uploaded soon. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe spotters are locked-down or are less interested in waiting for movements at airports with 10 times less traffic!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That could well be the case! We may have to wait a bit. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Trigenibinion: with regard to the edit you left on BilCat's talk page (which should've been posted to this page), if you know that the source BilCat requested was removed in a previous edit (and even know the specific edit), why not just copy the source from that edit into the edit you're trying to make? - wolf 21:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I left it to someone else to decide what they wanted to do: move the reference or restore the removed section. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: That doesn't make sense. You tried to add content, yet you know that content needs to be supported. Why not just add the support, which would be easy considering you don't need to research it and then write it out, but instead just copy it from a diff? Instead, you are expending much more time and energy posting to different talk pages about it. There's nothing for anyone else to decide what they "want" here. You are the one that "wanted" to add it, so why not just add it, along with the source and be done with it? - wolf 23:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone else wanted to add it, I corrected that it was not sourced, as I was the one who put it in the civilian operators section before it was removed. What I would want is for the civilian operators sections to be reinstated. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We dont normally list civilian operators unless significant for some reason (a rare occurance). Listing civil operators of non-airline aircraft with mainly single aircraft or very low numbers has in the past not been considered encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I can understand there be many small companies providing aircraft and that it is not fair to only list the big ones. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: when you reverted, it was then you who was trying to add that content. As such, it fell to you to properly source it. You could've easily done that, but instead you went to a user talk page about it, and are now hashing this out here. Take a look at: WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you wanted to discuss MilborneOne's edits, then just do that, without trying to create a supposedly related dispute with a needless revert of someone else's edit. - wolf 13:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to add the civilian section back to include the reference, but it might have been considered warring, so I left it to someone else. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I went to the reverter's page to explain the misunderstood comment. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: Again, there is no reason you couldn't add the source for that single edit, for content you were trying to add, at that time. How is adding a source "warring"? If adding that content was ok, then so would be adding a source for it (in fact, you were supposed to). But this is starting to go in circles now, so I'm not sure what else there is to add. - wolf 14:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The source was in the history, as I tried to explain in the comment. I felt it was not right to add it to the infobox, so I let someone else decide what they wanted to do. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Like I said; circles... - wolf 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not me who is insisting on this issue. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then let it go. And with that, I think we're done here. - wolf 01:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)