Talk:Eviation Alice

Why delete correct new content?
[moved from my talk page, more appropriate here--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)]

Hello Marc, Why delete correct content that I added today?

And leave incorrect info such as this: ''Two versions of the Alice were planned. The initial, unpressurized model is intended for air taxi operations, with energy stored in a lithium-ion battery, Eviation has been working on building a prototype scheduled to fly in early 2019 and aims to certify it under the FAR Part 23 for IFR and known icing conditions. The second, pressurized model will be an extended-range ER executive aircraft available by 2023 for $2.9 million, with a more powerful aluminum-air battery with a lithium-polymer buffer, a cabin pressurized to 1,200 m (4,000 ft) at FL 280, G5000 avionics, a 444 km/h (240 kn) cruise and 1,367 km (738 nmi) range.[1] The pressurized cabin airplane was named the Alice Commuter.[citation needed]''

This is the correct, updated content that I added ... after a great deal of research, finding not a word about any unpressurized model on any News or Aviation web site. Check the Eviation Web site to confirm there is no second model and that the current model is pressurized: ''The airplane, with a pressurized cabin, now named the Alice Commuter, is intended for air taxi operations, with energy stored in a lithium-ion battery. Eviation has been working on building a prototype scheduled to fly in early 2020 and aims to certify it under the FAR Part 23 for IFR and known icing conditions. With 260 Wh/kg cells, the 900 kWh battery capacity (3,460 kg, 7,630 lb) gives the design a range of 540–650 nmi (1,000–1,200 km) at 240 knots and 10,000 ft (3,048 m). This is anticipated to increase as battery technology improves.''

Two models may have been planned some years ago, but that has all changed. Only one model, the pressurized Alice Commuter is now planned. If old, incorrect information is included, it should be marked accordingly. I chose to delete the now-incorrect info. but you reverted my edit. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. From the company Web site. Service ceiling 30,000' so it must be pressurized. Only the one model (and an unrelated drone) are discussed, the Alice Commuter. Eviation Alice is designed as a 2+9 configuration to ensure compliance with FAAs’ FAR 23 for commuter and on-demand operations. https://www.eviation.co/alice/ Peter K Burian (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not delete any content : I restore the referenced parts as they were and moved your additions for WP:INTEGRITY. If you modify a referenced part, it is your duty to verify if you do not change its coherence with the source. In this case, Eviation was initially going to build 2 variants as reported by the (most reputable) Aviation Week. Maybe the plans changed after that, but the history is still that. You should not rewrite history. Just add it seems to bo only 1 variant now. That the eviation website does not refer to 2 variants does not mean the initial plan is abandoned. An independent report is needed to claim the abandon, unless it is WP:OR. A 30,000ft service ceiling does not mean pressurization. I think the DHC-6 ceiling is 25,000ft, you can reach high altitudes with supplemental oxygen for occupants, eg in a ferry flight.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, Marc Lacoste; I have made the necessary change. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Prototype fire reference
(moved from my talk page, more relevant here--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC))

I see that you reverted my edit on the Eviation Alice, stating that I needed to review the source and not just the title. I did read the source before I made that edit. The article is not about the Eviation Alice, it is about the Lilium aircraft. The Eviation fire is only mentioned as an afterthought. This source really does not support the article at all, considering that there are much better and more detailed sources out there.

Rather than reverting your edit, I flagged the citation as irrelevant. I will not be making further edits regarding this citation, but I do stand by my decision to delete it. Falconus p t   c 14:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Falconus: I was just about to remove your tag on the Eviation Alice page when I noted it had already been done. While about another aircraft fire, the article also details the Alice fire. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that all refs be "only" about this aircraft and no other ones. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ditto, the reference being about another plane does not matter: the claim is supported by the ref, I even added the relevant quote. As explained in the edit summary, you can replace it with another equally reliable source, though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you. Falconus p t   c 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical claims
Based on this article and this BBC report several of the technical claims and design features put forward by this company are not believable, or at best highly doubtful. To list just a few: Please be aware that such claims are just marketing puff and do not write them in as verifiably credible. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Battery weight remains a killer. The claimed performance and range with a full load does not align with studies by Airbus and other credible designers.
 * With 50% of maintenance cost down to battery life/replacement alone, claims of being "much cheaper" than conventional planes do not stand scrutiny.
 * The flat-bottomed fuselage does not bring improvements; if it did, it would have been adopted a long time ago.
 * The short main legs and taildragger configuration shown at Paris are absurdly unsuited to modern handling techniques or to rotation for takeoff for a canard.
 * The single-engine-out scenario must leave grave doubts as to stability and control authority in yaw.


 * I totally agree with you, this plane seems to be more buzz than sound business, and most claims seems impossible with current battery technology. But our duty as encyclopedia editors is not to judge a design feasibility, but to report reliable sources. Your edits seems inline with this goal. Anyway, claims are just claims for now as it is not flying, not in serial production, not sold, not certified, not delivered and not in commercial service.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC) On the other side, I would be really pleased if any of these claims could be approached, it would be good news for aviation!

I suggest new content be used reflecting the current Eviation website. historical info needs to be depreciated for clarity


the range, batteries attributes and other technical statistics mentioned on this page with regard to intentions may have once been correct repetition of media announcements, but they no longer match the technical characteristics listed on Eviations own website specs for the Alice. while I see that the text has been changed to reflect that the info is historical, I don't see the change that emphasises what is accurate today with regard to design specs of the Alice. IMHO the text currently reads in a confusing manner and I do not see the data which reflects the data on the Evation website with regard to aircraft range, battery chemistry, energy density, power rating, size and so on repeated here.

I think that the currently published Eviation data needs to be up top, and historical info in a seperate wiki-page section down below for clarity and to avoid reader confusion. I know I'm struggling to seperate historical data claims and current data claims by Eviation in this Wiki page. see: https://www.eviation.co/aircraft/#Alice-Specifications

Thanks. Alastair ps (I have no idea how to use the Wikipedia talk interface properly, so I apologise in advance if I did this incorrectly). WideEyedPupil (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I checked thoroughly, and the currents /specs/ section reflects precisely the eviation.co/aircraft/#Alice-Specifications website. I even added the Takeoff field length. The section order is harmonized per WP:Aircontent. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Please be concise in the talk page! Thanks.
 * Eviation has just published some major changes, so I have brought the specs up to date. Falconus p t   c 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Design updates
Coming to Talk for some good old-fashioned WP:BRD regarding incorporation of new information into the Design section here. I updated the section with sourced info from the July 1 announcement, which Marc Lacoste has reverted as 'revert changes to cited content'. I included sources for the changes made, and cited them appropriately. Discuss? Retswerb (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My mistake, sorry!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! Retswerb (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)