Talk:Pipistrel Taurus

Suggested correction for Taurus Electro G2
Hello, as an employee of Pipistrel company I would like to suggests a correction. Under "Variants", "Taurus Electro G2" there is incorrect information that it was "...Introduced in February 2011". Also, I think an important piece of information is that Pipistrel Taurus Electro was the world's first fully electric (battery-powered) 2-seater, for which the American magazine Popular Science named it Thank you. Ymmo (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The company made the first announcement of it already in December 2007 with the news article on Pipistrel's website:
 * In 2008, the aircraft was already offered on the market. The price was announced at the CAFE Foundation's with the claim that the company will "...sell it for the same price as the piston engine Taurus" (verifyable in the presentation which two company employees held at the Symposium, available here: ).
 * Piston-engine Taurus M had been on the market for 4 years at the time, so the price was known. Several orders for Taurus Electro were already accepted throughout 2008 and 2009, as is evident here: ),
 * and the first complete aircraft was delivered to the customer in June 2010. I have no other way to prove this but factory sales contracts, which contain buyers' personal information and are therefore confidential. Any ideas how I can argument it?


 * So the only mistake is "2011"? a mistake of the AVweb ref. In the previous paragraph, it is already said "In 2007 the company developed the Taurus Electro..." with a ref, I duplicated it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC) (for the AVweb ref, maybe it was implying the USA introduction?)


 * For "first complete aircraft was delivered to the customer in June 2010. I have no other way to prove this" You can publish a press release dated of June 2010, it's a good enough ref for a delivery (not extraordinary claim like world's first [XXXXX]. Weasel wording could say the "first electric self-launched glider" (if there was a WP:RS), not an aircraft capable of doing a planned journey from two points, as it have less autonomy than VFR reserves.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please be not so verbose? If it's a small mistake, just say what is wrong a give a ref if not already present. If you want an addition, wait till mistakes are corrected. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)