Marty_d Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 The $93m private jet with a four-year wait list I especially like the first line of the third paragraph, which gives the length of the aircraft as 6.7 metres. (Actual length is 33.9 metres). I like that not only the journalist, but the editor (if they even use those any more) didn't pick up that they'd given a luxury jet which carries 19 people a size slightly longer than their family car. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pominaus Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Knowing modern journalism it was probable copied whole sale from someone else's mistake lol. It's kind of like the old pirate radio stations that used to have their news and weather 10 minutes after the official stations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pominaus Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 ... yep! I didn't want to go to the sun, but they listed it as 22'2" long, so news.com.au just copied that and converted it to meters rather than pop on over to Wikipedia lol. Not sure where the Sun copied it from, but they got all their photos and bulk of it from Reuters... though the Reuters article doesn't list length. Maybe the sun just googled the wrong plane? Though tats a foot shorter than a pA28 Lol. I like to think they put in G7000 to google, google said did you mean G1000, aand just went with the first plane that came up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 While everyone must be totally outraged by this unforgivable blunder, the underwhelming number of letters to the editor tends to indicate that the outrage isn't shared globally. I notice that the outraged haven't been able to set a better example by going to the source - the manufacturer, and provide full details, so here's the link about what looks to be a beautifully designed aircraft. Global 7000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pominaus Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Lol outrage. Personally I just fun looking into it, & op corrected them on the length from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekliston Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 I'm surprised that no one has commented on 'nautical kilometres!!' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 What do expect from the Murdoch media? $550 cheaper electricity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 I'm surprised that no one has commented on 'nautical kilometres!!' Totally agree, when I first saw this thread I was thinking hmm getting the length wrong isn't a huge dealbreaker for me after all it is easy to get numbers mixed up but to call them nautical kilometres lol that is a bit much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRviator Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 From the brochure: initial cruise altitude, FL430 at MTOW. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now