Talk:Cessna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cessna article.
Article policies
Kansas Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.
AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Most Produced Aircraft???

The article says, "After World War II, Cessna created the 170 - which, along with later models, notably the 172, became the most widely produced light aircraft in history." I suspect that it's the most widely produced aircraft (of any weight category). Does anybody have real numbers to support that? --RoySmith 21:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant it is, but I know that in Portugal any light/GA aircraft is referred to as a Cessna Galf 13:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronounce

How does one pronounce "cessna"? --195.148.191.82 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

SES-nuh - DavidWBrooks 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
SES-nah in the United States, but in most other countries, especially Spanish-speaking lands, it is pronounced "CHESS-na" or "CHASE-na"

[edit] Interesting new product developments

Cessna has a couple of interesting projects in the works including new design semi-composite aircraft in the 152 (LSA http://se.cessna.com/lsa/) and 172 (NGP http://se.cessna.com/ngp/) "class"...it might be good to see a section on new development. - AbstractClass 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These two aircraft actually have their own pages at Cessna NGP and Cessna LSA Concept, although some mention of them in the body of the article might be worthwhile. Ahunt 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename Category:Cessna to Category:Cessna aircraft

This proposed change would bring the category in line with other categories in Wikiproject Aircraft such as Category:Piper aircraft, Category:Grumman aircraft, etc.

[edit] Are the Buzzwords Needed?

I don't think the buzzwords are needed in an encyclopedia. Just my $.02MystikRyder 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)MystikRyder

Please tell us what words you're talking about - Adrian Pingstone 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a section in the article on "buzzwords", but I very much disagree with MystikRyder. When a company invents terminology that becomes used in the industry, describing that company as the origin of the words is appropriate for the article. Akradecki 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry, I hadn't looked at the article properly when I wrote my comment above). I agree with Akradeck, if Cessna did invent those words (and not just reuse them) then they are appropriate to the article - Adrian Pingstone 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not what "notable" means. The terms would have to be widely referred to in the industry. If they are of niche interest only they probably ought to be removed. Matt Whyndham 11:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah but that is the key thing! Cessna's marketing dept did invent these words, other companies have either adopted them or felt that they had to make up their own equivalents (NB American Aviation made up "Face-Saver Landing Gear " in response to Cessna's "Land-O-Matic Gear"). Pilots also use these Cessna terms, sometimes sarcastically. These marketing buzzwords have become an ingrained part of aviation culture as a result. They are definitely significant and constitute some of Cessna's contributions to aviation, for better or worse. Ahunt 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long list of aircraft models : really needed?

Is it necessary to have the list of every single aircraft produced? How about some indication of the significant, innovative or popular models? A separate article could hold the list, if it was really thought worthwhile. Matt Whyndham 11:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the Cessna model "box" has been widely instituted at the bottom of each Cessna aircraft page perhaps this list needs to have its focus changed. Perhaps it should include a single line of detail about each model to enable people reading it to find the model that they are interested in, even if they don't know the model number or name? I would hate to see the list just axed. Ahunt 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think creating a List of Cessna aircraft is a good idea as well, and with each model a brief description of the aircraft. Perhaps even put it in a table that includes the year built and number built. Anyone also think it's a good idea? --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If a List of Cessna aircraft is made, it should be broken into several sections, The Clyde Cessna years, 1911-1933; Dwayne Wallace period 1933 until 1945, the classic period from 1946-1986(piston engine shutdown), and 1986-present.--TimothyMN (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)