Talk:Zunum Aero

Statements based on anticipated technological advances&hellip;
I have to wonder about statements such as this one&hellip;

Range will increase to beyond 1,000 nmi (1,900 km) by 2030 with in-service aircraft upgrades made possible by technology advances.

This seems to be stated as an absolute, that range will increase as stated, in the time stated, due to technological advances. I have to question whether such a statement is valid, that it can properly be assumed that technology will advance in the manner and to the degree necessary to validate this statement. I do not think that we can predict technological advances that reliably; and I do not think that we can honestly make such definite statements as to what will happen because of technological advances that haven't happened yet.

I think that we can say &ldquo;Range might increase to beyond 1,000 nmi (1,900 km) by 2030 with in-service aircraft upgrades made possible by technology advances.&rdquo; Perhaps we can even say, &ldquo;Range will probably increase to beyond 1,000 nmi (1,900 km) by 2030 with in-service aircraft upgrades made possible by technology advances.&rdquo;  I don't think we can say &ldquo;Range will increase to beyond 1,000 nmi (1,900 km) by 2030 with in-service aircraft upgrades made possible by technology advances.&rdquo;

&mdash; Bob Blaylock (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * True. Done. Marc Lacoste (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think this will happen
Will this happen? Catman3571 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. Wikipedia don't care, Wikipedia only reports reliable sources. See WP:NOTFORUM.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What's up with the tense (literary) of this article?
I've noticed that this article is pretty inconsistent with its tenses: it "was" an aircraft manufacturer that "has been" working on an aircraft since 2013, implying that it "is" still an aircraft manufacturer. In the "Timeline" section, the "planned" from the first paragraph and the last two sentences of the last paragraph support the "was" from the beginning. Then it's fine for a while, until the "Development" subsection of the "Six-to-12-seat ZA10" section, which seems to support the "has been"/"is" tense, as it details plans for the ZA10 until 2023 or so, but this contradicts the last paragraph of the "Timeline" section, where it states that most of the staff was laid off, facilities and offices were closed, and an in-development motor was seized by creditors after money problems. Then the "Design" subsection insinuates that it is still under development and supports the "is" tense, and if you check their website at https://zunum.aero/, it also supports the "is" tense, but you can notice that it hasn't been changed since 2017, which is what the copyright date at the bottom says; the site is not very big, either. Can someone help? I'm really confused. Sorry if I sound a bit hardcore. Christian Azinn (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With the workforce laid off, the HQ closed and creditors walking away with the hardware we have to assume that this company is dead in the water and update the article accordingly. That means changing the bits we don't delete to the past tense. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)