Talk:Pipistrel Virus

Criticism of headroom

I have semi-protected the article for a moment to give the IPs a chance to make a case of why they want the criticism section removed. We should look at its notability and perhaps undue weight in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi-protection. The issue is a legitimate criticism of the design, referenced to a reliable source (a professional reviewer) and is balanced with a response from the company. The edit history summaries show how the wording was negotiated previously and how consensus was reached at the present wording. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the IPs are back to vandalizing the article now that the protection has expired. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I am writing this regarding the edit of the Pipistrel Virus page. I am one of the people who attempted to delete the paragraph quoting the review of Mr. Bertorelli. The paragraph quoted is in the interest of a person who harbors very negative feelings towards the company Pipistrel. In the past it has been used several times to post slander and negative information. It is also not based in fact; the author has no other proof for it but his own personal opinion (you will notice the paragraph cited uses terms such as "in my view". This is not objective.) So far, this very quotation has been used in several location/media with the purpose to discredit the good name of our company.

I kindly ask you to keep the aforementioned paragraph off the Pipistrel Virus page, unless it can be proven with objective crast-test results, not just an opinion posted in a blog. The actual tests for the aircraft: Pipistrel Virus and Pipistrel Virus SW (such as for example 45° Nose-down Drop test to the ground for the Spanish certification - video exists in the archive of Pipistrel company and can be viewed on demand. Also other tests - mail me if you are interested) have shown no higher risk of head injury because of the wing spar compared to other similar aircraft; in fact, they showed that the roll-cage with the wing spar offers higher protection against protrusions of outside objects such as trees. If you, however, insist of keeping the paragraph on the page, I politely request that you include the clarification by the Pipistrel engineer Tine Tomazic also, for the sake of objectivity. Thank you.

Sincerely, Taja Boscarol, PR Manager / [email protected] / PIPISTREL d.o.o. Ajdovscina / www.pipistrel.si — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymmo (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

First off you need to read WP:COI, because you are in a clear conflict of interest. You also need to stop edit warring to get your own way or you will be blocked.

The paragraph is question is referenced to a reliable media source that has editorial oversight and presents both the critique and the company's response from Tine Tomazic. Wikipedia is not the company website, so you can't just remove all well-sourced criticism of your products, just because you don't like what the critics say. The multiple attempts to remove this criticism have been reverted by six different editors, showing a strong consensus for including this material. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the random person's opinion, and sticking to the facts. Like the Virus performance numbers. The ones on the page are for the Virus SW. A completely different aircraft. Nomorebsplease (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote in question is not a "random person's opinion", it is a published criticism of the aircraft design by an experienced and widely respected aviation expert, published in a reliable third party ref that has editorial oversight. The issue here is that an authority has criticized the aircraft, the company responded and the response is also in the article, providing balance to the criticism. Even so the company apparently doesn't like being criticized and has been vandalizing the article to sanitize it. Wikipedia doesn't work that way as explained at WP:COI. If you want to change the specs to a different sub-model and can source them, then that is fine. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I have joined this discussion to try and help resolve some differences of opinion. Newcomers and knowledgeable folks are always welcome, but do need to understand that we are a rich community well used to defending our encyclopedia against the anarchy that is the Internet. We have some pretty strict rules designed to keep our pages encyclopedic and our discussions civil. It is important to understand what Wikipedia is not, in this case it is not a company marketing tool. We also, perhaps oddly at first sight, put verifiability above truth; what that means is, believing you are right is no excuse for putting up content which cannot be verified by an independent researcher from reliable sources quoted in the article. This is what makes Wikipedia a really bad place to try and spin your baby in the best possible light. Ahunt (talk) is an experienced member of the Aviation wikiproject and really does know what he is talking about. You would be unwise as well as uncivil to treat him as a "random person." Listen to him. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What I was referring to is the Random person named John Valldejuli, who wrote to Paul Bertorelli in Paul's Blog article. If you actually read the blog Article from Paul Bertorelli the "widely respected aviation expert", Paul found that the wing spar was not worth mentioning in his ACTUAL review article. The text in the wikipedia article is worded poorly, stating that Paul is "condemning" the design, while in fact he is not, he is simply responding to some random persons complaint. In my own personal experience, every single aircraft out there will have something that someone doesn't like. I have found the CTLS aircraft has a comparable spar crossing through the cockpit, yet in wikipedia it states "One reviewer of the CT2K writing COPA Flight in October 2004 described the aircraft as "fast, comfortable, roomy and very capable of long cross country flights for little money" and faulted the aircraft only for its difficulty slowing down from its cruise speed of 130 knots to its final approach speed of 50 knots, requiring careful planning to lose 80 knots between entering the circuit and stabilizing the aircraft on final approach.[2]". I could easily dig up gushing reviews of the Pipistrel Virus from some random Virus owner in the COPA magazine... would this trump John Valldejuli?

If you've ever flown the Challenger II LSA, you'll notice your head knocks between the two posts like a pinball. The CH701 has so little leg room I had to amend my flight plan and land after 30 minutes. Even a Cirrus is too cramped for the wrong pilot. I would suggest not condemning one particular aircraft on one persons experience from his own unique body size. Let the pilots decide for themselves if an aircraft fits them properly. This is why there are Demo Flights, and air shows.

I like looking at airplanes as much as the next guy, but when I stumbled across this virus article in Wikipedia after already reading AVWEBs articles and seeing the virus and sitting in it at an airshow, I would suggest this article is very "Verifiably" inaccurate. 162.157.63.16 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You will note that the quotes in this article are not from John Valldejuli, but are from Paul Bertorelli, an acknowledged aviation expert. As the ref explains, Valldejuli asked him about the issue and Bertorelli wrote his judgments on the design, which are quoted in the article. If you have published criticism of other designs from reliable sources, like this one is, then those can and should be added to those articles. Wikipedia is not part of company marketing efforts. That said, if you check the edit history a company editor added a balanced response from the company to this article. Overall it forms a balanced and well-sourced criticism. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a virtual edit conflict here. Part of the company's view is that this class of aircraft typically has such issues. On that basis I though that discussion of the criticism was too prominent, forming too large a proportion of the article overall, and IMHO gave too much prominence to one lonely blog post. So I edited it down, it turns out while AHunt was commenting above. Do we still need to revisit? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say "the Virus has limited headroom for taller pilots in the event of a crash", I didn't find any problem when I sat in one, I'm 5'11", but my legs may be longer than normal? Either way, the entire part about the crash is speculative. Nomorebsplease (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Nomorebsplease (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I take your first point, however I think the dependency on pilot height is obvious enough to be trivial. On your second, I agree that this is an allegation which appears to be based on a single blog discussion, but the aviation journalist concerned is respected, so I have watered down the paragraph a little more rather than deleting it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Since this hinges on one expert's opinion I think the article needs to name the expert to avoid WP:WEASEL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Any better now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I opted for a short quote, see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that the general reader will not be an aircraft safety expert and will find the words "crush and flail" somewhat emotive and suggestive of a negative agenda (however unwarranted such an assumption might be). Anybody with a serious interest can read the blog for themselves, so I'd prefer to leave those words out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are the technically correct terms, but let's see if I can come up with something more general. I'll add that, see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Pipistrel Virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation-news/newsfeed.php?artnum=2426

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

bot didn't do anything useful. - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal Pipistrel Velis Electro → Pipistrel Virus

The following discussion 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.

---

• Oppose merger - while the Velis Electro is a variant of the Virus, it has received widespread press coverage as the world's first certified electric aircraft and thus easily makes WP:GNG for a separate article. The Pipistrel Velis Electro article contains too much detail that would either be lost in a merger or would swamp the existing article. There is much more WikiProject Aircraft guidance here where you will note that, given it has been given a distinct type designation by EASA, is "reported as a distinct subtype in reliable secondary sources" and also would require splitting from the main article due to too much detail, if part of the main article, it meets the requirements there for a separate article. It is also treated a separate model by the manufacturer. As this aircraft enters service this year the article will only grow in size with list of operators and operational history added. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merger - I oppose also. Velis Electro is an entire different aircraft to Pipistrel Virus, not a variant. Virus (or Virus SW) is powered by a petrol engine. Velis Electro entirely electric, and therefore closer to being a variant of Pipistrel Alpha Electro, but as opposed to Alpha, the Velis Electro features an entirely liquid-cooled powertrain, including the batteries, which are also of a next-generation technology. Thanks to these improvements, the lifespan of the powertrain is double than that of the previous generation of electric aircraft. The motor and power controller are also improved for robust operation in hot and cold climates. The Velis Electro has a 50 kg higher MTOW than the Alpha Electro. In the cockpit, the Velis Electro includes an embedded data-logger, and a tactile and aural AOA-based stall warning. Velis Electro has heavy duty landing gear and wheel brakes, 15% more energy on board and its systems have showed resistance to HIRF (direct and indirect effects). And finally, the Velis Electro is EASA type certified, which opens the door for commercial operation. Ymmo (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst only a variant, the all electric aspect involves major changes, which can best be explored in a separate article.--Petebutt (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (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.