Jump to content

Talk:Solar Impulse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why?

[edit]

Why? 71.112.4.204 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

See the AfD debate. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me specific reasons? Ksnow 11:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Refit

[edit]

I have just done a general cleanup, correcting English, tone, facts, and wikisation. I strongly suspect that material either from advertising texts, or inspired by them (the style of the empty sentences, the way words like "success" are inserted in the text for no good reason, and the usage of trivial words like "skin" instead of "layer" match the style of the advertisement of the general public).

Ah, and he first flight was by Clément Ader; no need to say not only unrelated, but also incorrect things. Rama 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Specs should be removed

[edit]

As this is a project to build a plane, the specs are crystalballery at best. From all I can find, the design is not even finalized yet. In a similar vein, the "timeline" should at least be clearly described as goals of the project. Can anyone with more current information confirm the completion of the stages who's dates have past? Pjbflynn 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean is it possible to say that the project has gone through "Concept", "design" and "simulation" stages ? I wonder whether those working on the project could, even without bending these terms to match expectations in their reports. Only when they sart building substential will this have any sort of meaning. Rama 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Is there any public domain photo of the current aircraft? The 2004 mockup (currently pictured) seems substantially different from the plane whose pictures are been in the media and on the project website. Owenozier (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used in finnish wp this: prototype from 2008, but possibly there's in Commons search: Solar impulse other, even better pics :) --J. Sketter (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sold. Owenozier (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record altitude?

[edit]

The article claims that in the first 24hr flight, "the plane reached a maximum altitude of 8,700 m (28,500 ft) during its flight, the highest recorded by a solar-powered plane" and references a BBC article, which, unfortunately, is wrong on the counts of it being the longest duration and highest recorded.

Another BBC article has the QinetiQ Zephyr flying above Concorde at 60 000ft for 82hrs and is cited by Wikipedia article on Solar-powered aircraft.

I don't know Wikipedia policy on this, one would think that a reputable source has been cited, except it is the BBC on something technical.

Perhaps it was the highest manned flight? JBel (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two BBC refs certainly contradict each other. I suggest removing the claim from this article that it is the highest flight by a solar-powered aircraft as it is obviously not correct. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the paragraph has been re-worked I have removed this statement as it is clear that the ref is not right. Even the BBC gets things wrong sometimes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added back a claim that this is the longest and highest manned solar powered flight along with a ref that makes that claim. I hope there are no other refs that contradict it this time! - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in the clear as the FAI credits the records to different classifications: Zephyr's U class record & Solar Impulse's CS class record - Infidellic 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Commentator at Solar Impulse

[edit]

I added a link to the guy (Martin Reichlin) who was writing a lot of the Solar Impulse web site "blog" commentary, as it took me quite a sophisticated search to find out which Martin Reichlin he was and what his relevance here was – writer of the only ref to the hunch I had about the reason for the massive height they are going to, with all its cold and radiation exposure risks etc. I though others might have appreciated knowing some background to who wrote this, so included it as another inline citation, but this appears to have got swept away in the frantic activity around the 24 hr flight and article reorganisation. Any way of keeping it in the article?... or maybe here will do: http://www.solarimpulse.com/common/documents/blog.php?lang=fr?lang=es&group=media&id=50&comment=visible access date 2010-07-08. User:Ahunt was doing a lot of work around there. Cheers, Trev M  ~  20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I removed that bit. I don't see who is doing the reporting as relevant to the subject of this article although it would be in an article on the reporter himself. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article

[edit]

The manufacturer is the Solar Impulse Project. EPFL is the scientific adviser to the project, so I think the name should be "Solar Impulse", and not "EPFL Solar Implulse". Unless anyone objects, I propose to move the page back to "Solar Impulse". Hallucegenia (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Impulse will need to be G6'd, I've tagged it for that. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no objections. mgeo talk 20:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who helped do this. Hallucegenia (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First flight

[edit]

I believe the "Solar Challenger" made the first international flight by a piloted, solar-powered aircraft in July of 1981. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Challenger 202.80.45.106 (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Payload

[edit]

Currently the spec list includes:

Payload: Lithium-ion batteries: 450 kg, (capacity: 200 Wh/kg = 90 kWh)

The payload should be the carrying capacity, not the mass of the batteries. These are a vital component of the operation of the craft.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Across America 2013

[edit]

This table paragraph is listed for the HB-SIB (Solar Impulse 2) but should be in the HB-SIA section which already contains the United States (2013) paragraph. The two are about the same trip and the HB-SIB was not even in operation as the article correctly states 91.65.104.32 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! I moved the section. Thanks for pointing out. Wild8oar (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why four engines?

[edit]

I wonder what the benefits of the four-engine configuration are. Surely, two engines would be more beneficial in terms of aerodynamics. From an oblique hint in French in their press corner, I gather it could relate to the sizes of the propellers somehow. --Cancun771 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cancun771, one thought is if they used two engines the propellers would need to be larger meaning they would need to raise the wing higher so that the propellers can clear the ground. That means larger landing gear on the front and adding some sort of extension to the tail which has a wheel. Four engines also gives you a safety margin as the aircraft can likely glide quite a ways on two or three engines allowing for one to fail and/or to be able to shut one or more down in flight to deal with an issue.
http://info.solarimpulse.com/pdf/edu/en/fiche_3_en.pdf says "Three years later, in 2006, a second model began to take shape on the computer screens, this time with four engines spread out under the wings. This configuration allows a better balance between the forces, the aerodynamic force or ‘lift’ which keeps the plane in the air and the thrust that propels it forward." The French version of this page says the same thing.[1] I was unable to find the oblique French hint you referred to. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fiche_3_en.pdf provides a satisfactory enough of an answer for us to improve the article as "a better balance between the forces" is fairly vague. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if ETOPS applies? It isn't obvious if it applies to Solar Impulse but if it does then a 4 engine configuration would ease the regulations when flying across the pacific. Porkbroth (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good thought Porkbroth. ETOPS seems to only apply to revenue flights. I used "seems" as they sure don't make it easy to figure that out. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/253653/ is a fun read. Check out those extended range fuel tanks! That page seems like uninformed speculation when it comes to ETOPS and so was not useful for this article.
ETOPS requires that an aircraft be able to divert to an airport within a specified amount of time on one engine. The time intervals are 60, 120, and 180 minutes. If an aircraft can cruise at 300 knots on one engine then it can fly 300 nm in 60 minutes. Thus the flight routes can be up to 300nm from any diversion airport(s) on the route. The Solar Impulse 1 cruised at 37.7 kts with both engines. Let's assume it can do 20 kts on one engine meaning it could be no further than 20 nm from an airport if they use ETOPS's 60-minute rule. ETOPS also applies to flying over land and suspect it's hard to find a land routes, much less water routes, that would have airports spaced every 40 nm or less. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting times in Detailed route section?

[edit]

I'm wondering if we need to include the UTC starting times in the table in the Detailed route section. It seems the only time it adds value is people can figure out that the aircraft stopped in Varanasi, India for 8 hours and 49 minutes. The other stops have been a week or more meaning there's little value in knowing the UTC hour and minute of departure for each leg. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Engines' or 'motors'?

[edit]

The article refers to 'engines' - but the official website follows what is surely the convention for electric drive in referring to 'motors'. I can't think of any obvious reason why Wikipedia should do things differently. Comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has objected, I've made the replacement - the article was inconsistent anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

state the records

[edit]

The article states Solar Impulse 2 "On 1 July 2015, Borschberg broke the endurance record for solo flight, as well as the record for longest-duration and distance flight in a manned solar-powered aircraft. The plane reached Hawaii on 3 July, setting new records for the world's longest solar-powered flight both by time and distance, and longest solo flight, by time, for any aircraft without refueling.[11]

but does not state the records. The records cannot be easily deduced from the table. For example the end date/time is not stated. Nor are the records flagged or marked in the table. Please state the actual new records in the text and table. Thank you, --Jcardazzi (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi[reply]

It's a good idea to add the new records (time and distance) for the flight from Japan to Hawaii, which I have just done (especially since these are records that will not likely be broken for a while). But it is not necessary to flag it in the table. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice the table distance is in nautical miles, nmi, could the term "in Nautical Miles" be added to the heading under distance? To help readability? Especially since miles is also used in the article for distance. Thank you--Jcardazzi (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi[reply]

I looked at this just now and thought about it, but I don't think it's helpful. The blue links are shown in the first row below. I think it would simply make the heading longer without adding anything. However, see below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical miles

[edit]

Can anyone comment on *why* we are presenting nautical miles, instead of statutory miles, in the second table? As the editor mentions above, the article uses statutory miles everywhere else. I can imagine that nautical miles are interesting to pilots, but I think that statutory miles would be more appropriate for this general readership encyclopedia. The mere fact that the official website prefers nautical miles should not dictate what measures we use here. If no one has a good reason to retain nmi, I suggest that we convert the nmi values to simply mi. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the first phase in 2015 the SI2 people published all data in nautical miles and occasionally provided kilometer translations. Nautical miles is the standard for aircraft navigation. Altitudes on the SI2 site were a mix of feet and meters depending on where you looked. It was getting messy for us as we'd be using the values provided by the source and added |flip as needed to keep the values our our table consistent. At some point between phase 1 and 2 they revised the web site with one of the changes being that they dropped nautical miles entirely and settled on using meters for the altitude. We never adjusted to that change and continue to show nautical miles / (km).
I don't have a strong feeling one way or another on the issue though suspect using KM followed by statutory miles would work. I suggested that order as 1) Most of the world uses km, and 2) Our source pages currently report km meaning we can just use {{convert|772|km|mi|abbr=on|lk=on}} to display a leg as 772 km (480 mi) for the first leg and to drop |lk=on for the remaining legs to get 1,593 km (990 mi) without linked metrics. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about it further. I do not believe the average person knows the difference between a nm and a mi and likely also does not care about the details. We currently have that they flew "747 nmi (1,384 km)" but is "1,384 km (860 mi)" better?
I also realized that currently the average speed is given in knots leading to rows that have "56.1 kn (103.9 km/h)" If we were to use metric as the primary metric we'd have a slightly longer "103.9 km/h (64.6 mph)". --Marc Kupper|talk 03:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only two countries do not have the metric system - so why would we use statute miles. Nautical miles on the other hand are used by pilots, including me. 58.174.99.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (Some sources state that Myanmar is a third country that does not use the metric system, but it has announced that it is changing.) 58.174.99.158 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking the numbers shown do not matter other than to help compare the segments. To make segment comparison easier I made the table sortable. Something we could do is in the body of the article to spell it out using 22,915 nautical miles; 26,370 miles; 42,438 kilometres. That would get the statute miles into the article while leaving the table at nautical miles (the standard for aircraft navigation) and kilometers which much of the world uses. I'm still waiting to hear back from the SI2 people as the total distance they show is 603km longer than the sum of the the legs.
While it's not relevant to this article quite a few countries still use miles. The list is at the bottom of the Mile#International mile section. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this article, the listed countries "with vastly less than a million inhabitants" have adopted the metric system and so the residents should understand kilometers. 58.174.99.158 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE and citation formats

[edit]

I do not see any benefit in using the cite templates. They are certainly not required by WP:CITE and are less flexible than simple bibliographic citations. The citation templates do often serve as a helpful checklist for newbies, but they are not generally helpful here and are not "ref improvements" as the edit summary claims. WP:CITE says: The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus. Per WP:BRD, lets discuss. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: I'm not sure what your comment is about. Are you proposing not using the standard citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite journal}}? I don't recall ever doing it for this article but if I see a bare URL citation I sometimes will convert that to {{cite web}}. It does improve the article quite a bit to do this as when a user hovers over the citation they now see a human readable explanation that includes a link to the cited web page. It also improves the reflist as the citations are in a more standard format making the reading of the reflist easier.
I looked at the article and see a number of what I call fake cite-webs. I believe they are done by people who see a nicely formatted citation in the reflist and emulate its look manually as they did not know how the original editor created them. For example, this looks like an attempt to emulate the look of a cite-news:
<ref name=BBCSevilleLanding>Amos, Jonathan. [http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36598140 "Solar Impulse completes Atlantic crossing with landing in Seville"], BBC, 23 June 2016</ref>
Many editors will use either WP:REFTOOLS or the visual editor. Both of those pop up a form where you fill in the title, URL, date, etc. and the editor automatically takes care of inserting the <ref> along with the appropriate citation template. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Marc. The cite templates are not required or even encouraged by WP:CITE. They are a crutch, like a checklist, that some editors prefer, but, as I noted above (a year ago), simple, manual bibliographic citations are more flexible and, IMO, better, because they do not contain all the coding that is in the templates. So, I disagree with you that it improves the article or the reflist. It's not that the manual citations emulate the templates, it's that the templates were created to emulate a good bibliographic cite format. Yes, I was proposing not using the templates, but it is probably not worth our time now to take them out. It's too bad, IMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At present there are 75 templated citations vs. 32 that are not and another 6 that are text notes. Somewhere along the line WP:CITECONSENSUS got ignored. I'm fine with the mix of styles as they look similar enough in the reflist. Between the visual editor which creates and edits templated citations automatically and WP:REFTOOLS I suspect in the long run the only articles that do not use the cite-... templates will be those using Harvard citations and {{sfn}}.
While I don't use the visual editor I've discovered it now has a nifty thing where you just give it the URL and it extracts the title, author, date, etc. from the more well known news sites. It means people new to WP can be generating decent looking citations from day one though they will be templated. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4/25/2016 Update

[edit]

Solar Impulse 2 has just completed a flight from Hawaii to California. Here's all I have at the moment:

Solar plane completes Pacific flight without fuel
A solar-powered plane successfully touched down in California Sunday, completing a two-and-a-half day flight without a single drop of fuel. The Solar Impulse 2, piloted by Swiss explorer Bertrand Piccard, took flight 62 hours earlier from Hawaii. The trip, which is being heralded as a major step in clean technology, is part of Piccard and his partner Andre Borschtberg's plan to pilot the plane across the world without any fuel. "It's a new era. It's not science fiction. It's today," Piccard told CNN. "It exists and clean technologies can do the impossible." 4/25/2016 e-mail "10 Things You Need to Know Today" from The Week magazine -- ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we already have all this in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distance: Legs 10 and 12

[edit]

 Fixed The official website gives the distance for legs 10 and 12 as exactly the same, at 1,113 km. Is there any way to confirm that this is right, or did they make a copy/paste mistake? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Leg 10 had an error on our side. I corrected this to match what www.solarimpulse.com is currently reporting. I have an e-mail out to the SI2 people as they report a total of 43,041 km traveled while a sum of the legs is 42,438 km. It's a little awkward at present as I added the table row with the totals using the sum of the columns while the SI2 people are reporting something that's 603 km higher. Someone doing fact checking likely will spot the issue. The SI2 people also are off by either one or two minutes on the total flight time depending on how you handle that number. For verification purposes, I put the data that’s currently published on http://www.solarimpulse.com for each leg into a spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1miNLb9u9uS4Th3mfr3l1BHJPp0ltqFg0w0pCVMzL3EM/ --Marc Kupper|talk 02:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that if you change distances, you also need to divide the flying time into the new distance to calculate the speed. I've done that for the changes you just made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumnavigation average speed

[edit]

42,438 km in 505 days; 42,438,000 m in 505*86400 = 43,632,000 secs; approx. 1 m/sec ! Sixhectomegaknots (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm the one that added it I've been wondering if 505 days is a good idea, particularly as the flights were suspended for 293 days. When they started the plan was for "35,000 km in 12 legs, 500 flight hours and 25 flight days".[2] At the end they summed it as "a total of 21 days of flight travelled in a 17-leg journey".[3] 21 days is confusing as 558 hours is 23.25 days.
Maybe the 505 days should get replaced by either nothing or 17 months? --Marc Kupper|talk 08:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's really 16-1/2 months, which we do mention elsewhere in the article, but most of them were spent in the hangar in Hawaii. I've taken out the number of days, as it doesn't add much. I added the 23.25 days total flight time, but take it out if you don't like the way it looks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The summary unter the table should give the totals of total travel time and real average travel speed which comes to 500 meters per hour. If anyone whants to see better results, they have to build a new plane and fly without long month of repairs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartTimeCityTroll (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clean technology and awareness used in or inspired by the project

[edit]

There have been lots of articles, over the past years, about the clean tech goals of the project, and also the actual advanced tech used in the aircraft, and some of that is reflected in the article. Has anyone seen any articles with more description of the exact tech that was developed for or used in the project, and whether that tech has already been put to work in commercial applications. And also, any articles with more description of other clean tech projects that have already been inspired by Solar Impulse, or any other concrete and specific impacts of the project? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plan and elevation diagrams

[edit]

Would anyone be able to create a comparison image of the two Solar Impulse aircraft with File:Giant_planes_comparison_-_Updated.svg? Here's good source: http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2014/June/solar-impulse-graphic.jpg?mw=9999 from http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/13-light-makes-flight . I haven't been able to find a side elevation, though. Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor, factual changes requested

[edit]

Hello, I am Jeremy Lovey, the content and community manager for Solar Impulse. I wanted to follow the community’s direction before making any factual/verified updates to this page and that of our pilots, so will be posting a series of “Talk Notes.” I would appreciate your thoughts on how to best move forward.

First, on the Solar Impulse page there are a few inaccuracy and wanted to check before making changes directly: • In line 2, it states that Bertrand Piccard is an “aeronaut,” which is the term for a military balloon pilot, I would like to change this to “…Swiss psychiatrist and balloonist Bertrand…” • Under “Project development and funding” Peter Diamandis is listed as one of the organizations who financed the project but he did not do so – I would like to remove his name? The article referenced an article on the Solar Impulse website that refers to patrons, such as Richard Branson, who are supporters not backers. • Under “Future unmanned solar aircraft project Solvay and ABB are listed as sponsors but that is not verified in the source. I would like to remove this portion of the sentence, “together with sponsors Solvay and ABB” • Under “Project Development and Funding” it reads as though Bertrand led the feasibility study, when in fact in was André. May it be rewritten to state that the vision for Solar Impulse was Bertrand’s, while the feasibility study was led by André?

Jeremy Solar (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremy Solar: I've changed aeronaut to balloonist. The bit about Solvay and ABB has been removed as requested. As for the other requests I don't have sufficient knowledge for the removal/retention of Diamandis and the reference given for Bertrand/André leads to Solar Impulse's home page. Therefore I can't verify the claim. Not saying that your sugestions aren't valid, just that I am unable to tell for certain. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Solar Impulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Solar Impulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Solar Impulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_Impulse&oldid=1209117842"