Talk:AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil 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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

A fact from AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the roadable aircraft prototype Aeromobil 2.5 successfully performed a flight in early 2013?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/December.

Wikipedia

Archives (index)

no archives yet (create)

Company name[edit]

Is it AeroMobil or Aeromobil? I can't be sure. The company Web site renders it both ways, in addition to AEROMOBIL. — Quicksilver^{T @} 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked though the company website and you are quite right they style it as Aeromobil, AeroMobil and AEROMOBIL throughout. This is not uncommon in small companies that have not written any branding policies as different people within the company write text and then send it to the (usually contract) webmaster who figures it is right and posts it. The result is confusion. I'll add all with a note to the lead para, which is probably the best we can do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've fixed the webpage. Thank you for reminding. SV (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company name is AeroMobil s.r.o. and product name AeroMobil. We have registered several trademarks, which can be found here https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#basic/1+1+1+1/AeroMobil. We'll update our webpage soon, sorry for the confusion. SV (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. When you do clarify that on the website perhaps you can leave a note here and we'll update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company webpage will be updated soon. I'd like to suggest the change of the entry title. We have registered only AeroMobil for the product, not Klein AeroMobil. Here is the link to our trademark record. Would you agree with the suggestion? SV (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming we usually name aircraft type articles "manufacturer-designation-name" and not "designer-designation-name" unless there is no manufacturer. I'll go ahead and do that. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Our manufacturer name and main corporate brand is AeroMobil. The product name is AeroMobil too. The name AeroMobil s.r.o. refers to our company, where s.r.o. stands for LLC or Ltd. Would you mind if I change it? SV (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth keeping the "s.r.o." there when referring to the company so as to differentiate it from the aircraft. It gets very confusing when the company and the product have the same name. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion. For me it sound bit weird, but if this is norm we have to accept it. To that point, I haven't seen other manufacturer name with Ltd. or Inc. in the titles on entries. There is no "Piper Aircraft Inc. Piper PA-28 Cherokee" or "Textron Inc. Cessna" - only Piper Aircraft or Cessna. During the prototyping phase we use only numbers to distinguish the prototypes from each other. Our team would be very glad if could use only the name AeroMobil.SV (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Piper and Cessna the company and product names are not the same, so disambiguation isn't required. We have quite a few cases where the company and the product names are the same and have tried to differentiate one from the other, like Phoenix Air Phoenix and Excalibur Aircraft Excalibur to avoid "Phoenix Phoenix", "Excalibur Excalibur" or in this case "AeroMobil AeroMobil". - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Recently added photo is not the same vehicle that recently crashed. What vehicle is it? Is the photo appropriate? Fanyavizuri (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not clear if it is an earlier version, a mock-up or something else. It is also an incomplete vehicle, whatever it is. The Flicker source gives no help sorting it out either. I think it is more confusing than useful, so I have removed the photo. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting Figures[edit]

At least one of the figures must be wrong: One can derive a tank volume of 37.5l out of the fuel consumption in the "car mode" (7.5l/100km) and the range (500km). A flight speed of 280km/h derives from the tank volume, flight range (700km) and the fuel consumption in "plane mode" (15l/h) - contradicting the mentioned max flight speed of 200km/h. 153.96.194.136 (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the spec figures from the ref cited, which is the manufacturer's data. Does that add up to a more sensible set of numbers? - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]