Template talk:Cessna aircraft

I created this template for kind of a navigation thing on the bottom of all the Cessna aircraft articles. If you see any inaccuracies, please fix them! If you have any other problems feel free to fix them or contanct me. Thanks! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make this always show or show by default

plz make it so this section shows all the time or by default so people dont have to click on it and to make navigation easier.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

Citation listing edit

Because the Citation family is so convoluted, and because the model numbers are so seldom referred to anywhere except in the aircraft's serial number, I've replaced them with the popular designation. I know this isn't standard, so if anyone objects, please ping me and let's discuss. Akradecki 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of model numbers in the list of names

In a recent edit Carguychris re-added "500" to the list of Citation names with the stated reason being that the aircraft was originally marketed as the "Cessna 500". "500" is the aircraft's model number, and while the aircraft was initially marketed solely with its model number, to call it a name in the same sense as all the other names listed in this template is a bit of a stretch. It was not uncommon for Cessna to market aircraft with only their model numbers; they did the same with aircraft such as the 172, 177, and 182 before they introduced deluxe models with the names we know today. I believe that introducing such model numbers into the list of names when they are already listed in a section of their own would cause more confusion than it was intended to prevent. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (and to reiterate what I wrote on ZLEA's user talk page), Cessna marketed the original Citation prior to the Citation I upgrade as the Citation 500 or Citation Series 500. This terminology was not widely used by secondary sources at the time, presumably because there was no other Citation to confuse it with, but it's used in Cessna advertising and some later published sources such as this 1991 Flying article. This specific model seems to be an outlier, as I don't think Cessna ever suffixed a model number after a model name when advertising another aircraft (e.g., "Skyknight 320"). However, since Cessna continued to use suffixes to differentiate Citation models (including the current M2), I think it warrants inclusion in the list. Carguychris (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA type certificate for the Model 500 lists only "Citation" (no suffix) and "Citation I", as well as "Citation II" for the Model 550. The Flying article also uses "Citation 500" and "Citation" interchangeably to refer to the original variant, so I'm not sure that it can be used to determine the proper form of the aircraft's designation. If "Citation 500" only appeared in Cessna promotional material (but not in any official documents or on the aircraft itself) and inconsistently in a few sources, then I still am not convinced that we should treat it as a suffix in the same sense as "I", "II", and so on. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA: I went MOS:BOLD and replaced the "500" reference with a footnote. This also provides an opportunity to add similar footnotes to models that only existed as a mockup or a concept. (Split previous "650/670" entry to make it clear that it was only the 670 that was never built.) Carguychris (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably the best way to handle this. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we need to differentiate between "not built" and "mockup only"? A mockup isn't an aircraft, so we could just use the "not built" for all of them. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in debate about that myself, but there are some Cessna promotional materials from the 50s circulating on social media showing the 407 mockup in settings that make it look like a real aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We might do better to merge the two and use "b" for something else like "produced by Reims only" for the Model 406. Navboxes serve primarily to facilitate navigation between articles, so too much extra information is usually discouraged. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, I agree that it makes the most sense to combine "mockup" into "not built". I also like the idea of a special footnote for Reims production only, so I added that as well, along with a footnote for aircraft redesignated during development. Lastly, I decided that it's fair to characterize the Hemisphere as "not built", even though Cessna has never formally terminated the program to my knowledge. Carguychris (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Reims-only model names

Should the Hawk XP and Rocket be included in the Names section? These models were produced by Reims under the 175 type certificate, but are treated as 172 variants by most sources. Carguychris (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]