Talk:FFA P-16

"Similarities" to the Learjet
Bill Lear's son has thoroughly debunked the "well-known fact" that the Learjet 23 is based on the P-16 in this article. The only thing the P-16 has in common with the 23 is that they both have eight spars in the wing; one might as well say that the Learjet 23 is based on the Rockwell Sabreliner because they both have rear-mounted engines. YSSYguy (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well dis stays in the oposide to other sources:
 * In the Book of the Swiss public Museum (Verkehrshaus) written by Georges Bridel, who was Doctor at the ETH Zurich (Technical Univerity) and was involved in the P-16 and the ALR Piranha] project: Schweizerische Strahlflugzeuge und Strahltriebwerke, Verkehrshaus der Schweiz, Luzern 1975, ISBN 3 85954 902 2. In this Book it is written that  the SAAC-23  / Learjet  bases  on the P-16 especaly the Wing and main Landing gear.
 * In the Newspaper "Zurichbieter" No. 182 from Monday 11.August 1980 Walter Dürig, the Director of the BAMF (Bundesamt für Militärflugplätze = Federal Bureau for Military Airbases)Says that the Learjets wing are based on the P-16 Wing (the BAMF was involvet in the P-16 Prject and all Testflights.
 * In the Newspaper "Schweizer Ilustrierte" No.33 from 11. August 1980 Claudio Caroni former director of the Flug- und Fahrzeugwerke Altenrhein who was leading the P-16 project and was one of the key persons for the SAAC-23  and negotiations with Bill Lear the P-16 living on in the form of the Learjets Wing.

FFA P-16 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NGC Network Documentation from 2012 about the Learjet (shown in German by N24 Doku " Learjet- Luxus über den Wolken") says That the Learjets wing is based on the P-16 wing.
 * Swiss Air Force Newspaper "Avia" (date/number I dont knew) has an article  who says the wing and structure of the Learjet-23 is based on the P-16. This articel refers to Documents  of the Dokument Dienst der Luftwaffe (Document Service of the air Force) 3003 Bern
 * A early advertising drawing shows the SAAC-23 with P-16 wings and at this stage with a cruciform tail (like the P-16) not a T-tail.
 * There are many many books and articles that say the same thing in English as well, which is apparently why Lear's son said what he did, because it has become "common knowledge" that the Lear was based on the P-16, But William Lear Jr. says the "common knowledge" is wrong, and he explains why it's wrong. The advertising drawing is completely irrelevant; Beechcraft built and displayed a mockup of its King Air with Turbomeca Bastan engines, but it came out with PT6s. Early drawings for the Boeing 747 showed two full passenger decks, not just a hump. Things change. YSSYguy (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is one thing that something can become as "common knowledge" if its in books written by people who were not involved in it. But here we have a few people who worked themselv with this (C.Caroni,W.Dürig and G.Bridel) who especali Claudio Caroni (CEO of FFA and leader of the SAAC project from the swiss side)who clearly say that the SAAC-23/ Learjet-23 wing's are based on the P-16. But if we have on one side one Person who was Testpilot for the Learjet-23, who was flying the P-16 a few times but is not an aircraft desinger, who say all the books (even that one from the Swiss Traffic Museeum, and the Dokument Service of the Swiss Air Force)and movies are wrong, I have some doubt's. One one side we have this one man saying this on the other side we have 3 other persons,some of them aircraft desingers who clearly say the Learjets wing is based on the P-16. Sorry but this, in my eyes, beats clearly in quantety and qualety.No one says it is a 1to 1 copy of the P-16 wing, but it is based on the P-16 wing. Also a friend who worked at this time at FFA confirmed me this.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh well, your friend who worked at FFA must know more about it than Bill Lear's son. Just repeating, the only similarity is the eight-spar structure. The airfoils are different, the sweep angles are different, the flaps are different, the leading edges are different. The eight spars may have inspired Bill Lear when he designed the Lear 23's wing, just as the Sabreliner may have inspired him to use two rear-mounted engines or the Lockheed Starfighter inspired him to use a T-tail. Ideas are borrowed all the time, which is not to say that one thing is based on another, otherwise it could be said that the Vickers Wellington bomber was based on the R100 airship. YSSYguy (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not that what my frind says who give the the weight of this, he confirmt to me just that what such people said and have written who realy were involved in the P-16 and the SAAC-23 project. Sorry but the CEO of the FFA Claudio Caroni is a person who realy knew what he says about this he was direct involved in this 2 Aircraftprojects he and the other guys I named before are for me much more crdible (not to forget the Swiss Air Force Document Department an the Swiss Traffic Museum) than a intervie of Bill Lears son, who him selves was not part of the construction team not of the P-16 not of the SAAC/ LJ-23. This people are not so silly that the say the wing is based on the P-16's just because it looks the same. They realy knew what they are talking because they workd on this, and it is documented. You have to hold in minde that at the beginning it was planed to build the SAAC-23 wing, landing gear. At FFA in Switzerland, ship them to the USA and complete there the Aircraft with the fuselage build in the USA. We have on one hand a Man who says he knews from his father, that all books,swiss goverments documents and statement of the FFA CEO is wrong? We are here not talking from "may have inspired" just because some thing on an aircraft looks simelar.I don't se why we have to change this just because 1 man say it is that way and we have on the other side a bunch of people anddocuments who say something differend. FFA P-16 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW i still have some scans from this newspapers (but they are in german), BTW the air Force Museum wit the FFA P-16 contains  also a lot of informations  wo say the same .. the LJ-23 wing is based on the P-16 wing, FFA P-16 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See FFA SAAC-23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Maiden flight and crash reall in the same day?
In current version of article, there is stated:

On 25 April 1955, the first of these aircraft (J-3001) performed its maiden flight. This prototype was subsequently destroyed in a crash on 25 April < > having conducted 22 flights with a cumulative flight time of 12 hours 38 minutes.

OK, did it really happend all during a single day? All those 22 flights and a finally a crash also? Or is there a typo in one of the dates?

Can somebody check this somewhere? I don't feel myself an expert on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klenot (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising it, I have corrected the date to the 31 August. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Fake ECM version
The (gobally blocked) user providing his model pictures to Wikipedia added a non existing "ECM" Version to the article. As a source he indicated Buttler but without indicating a page. This is fake. After checking the source I can assure: Not even the trainer version (that Bridel mentions for 1961) is mentioned in Buttlers book at all. It doesn’t even make sense: Unlike a trainer version in an ECM aircraft there is absolutely no need to sit side by side. Everybody with basic aviation knowledge should know this. --Caumasee (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As a source he now indicated Felix H. Meier but without indicating a page. This is fake: There is a chapter "Weiterentwicklungen" (developments) mainly explaining engine options. An image (page 76) shows a design proposal "P-1605": This is a two seat all-weather interceptor (of course tandem and not side-by-side). It differs from the Bridel Figure 44a in having no rear view from the rear seat. So another proposal at least on paper. No sign of side-by-side nor ECM.--Caumasee (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess he takes a vacation in England every 2 years, and uses the opportunity to pretend to be a different person on a British IP. But, as usual, he gives himself away. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Checking Felix H. Meier's book brought some clarity about the ever lasting Copyvios on Commons: Miraculously his copyright holder claim – “corresponding” now to the copyright indicated in the book (Hanspeter Mettler). In the book is credited “copyright FFA”. The availability of these picutre is well known; prints were sold in a shop in Wigoltingen: ''Aviation Shop, Eggrainstr. 2, 8556 Wigoltingen'' This leaves us with the following conclusion: Different pictures from different sources were declared as Kobel's own. Even worse: is clearly a professional photo with the number written into. The professional photographer is certainly not him – (being happy to upload ). Whereever he received the pictures: He certainly isn’t the copyright holder on all black and white factory pictures of the ongoing program (7 of them left in the category). The others in Altenrhein are questionable. The ones at Dubendorf may or may not belong to him.--Caumasee (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * P-16 foto2.jpg