Talk:Seaplane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Seaplane is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

Contents 1 Helicopters can land without fuel too 2 Alight vs Land 3 A parent article for floatplane and flying boat 4 Early use of seaplanes

[edit] Helicopters can land without fuel too

Quote from "Seaplane uses and operation": "Seaplanes are much more fuel-efficient than helicopters and, unlike helicopters, can land when they run out of fuel, weather permitting." Helicopters can land quite fine without fuel too, see the Autorotation article. I guess you meant "land in the sea", if so, that should be clarified. I didn't correct it since I'm a n00b, I can do it if you don't mind. --GunnsteinLye 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole paragraph is pretty unclear. I may take a shot at revising this if no one else steps up in the next week or two (and I don't forget).--chris.lawson 01:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And helo's come with fixed and inflatable floats, so could well be considered seaplanes, too! Akradecki 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alight vs Land

The FAA and AOPA may not call it alighting, but the CAA most certainly do. Think about it: how can it be landing if the stuff underneath's not land? I have, however, implemented a compromise that I think most people will accept. -Scott Wilson 22:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't much care either way, but I prefer landing just because its commonly used and descriptive of the action. Also, planes "land" on aircraft carriers, which aren't really land either. I guess what it comes down to is I believe a word can outgrow its origins. I think a note on the differences is definitely appropriate in the article, and I think that its ok as it stands now. -Lommer | ^talk 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty much OK with it now, although I think the wording itself is a little awkward. I might remember to get back to this and see if I can work out something a little more fluid (ha ha) sometime in the next couple of days. —chris.lawson (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. If anyone has issues with the re-wording, let me know and I'll try something else.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alight is a britishism. The compromise is fine, but calling it more correct when it is not more correct outside the authority of your local CAA (UK, Aus, NZ, whatev.) rankles a bit. You might want to NPOV that sentence a tad. OTOH, technical (or quasi-legal) terms that confuse should be avoided in a general-audience publication. Remember the "near-miss" controversy?

No. "Alight" is standard American. See Websters. Paul Beardsell 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe what was meant is that "alight", as applied to aircraft, is a Britishism. I've never once read or heard anyone in the US refer to a water landing as anything but a "landing".--chris.lawson 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And I haven't heard anyone in the UK say "alight" either in relation to flying. That doesn't make me think the term is an Americanism. Why would anyone think it is a Britishism? Paul Beardsell 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the first comment in this section, which states that the UK CAA refers to it as such? :) --chris.lawson 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As for landing, we both agree: It means stopping flying in a (probably) intentional (sometimes semi-)controlled fashion! Snow, ice, water, land, swamp, aircraft carrier. Paul Beardsell 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course you can land on water! Paul Beardsell 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A parent article for floatplane and flying boat

I thought it was fairly well understood that floatplanes and flying boats are quite different types of aircraft. To design, build, maintain and fly. That they are both seaplanes is also indisputable! And the rules and regs support my view: Go look. A seaplane is _any_ aircraft which can land(sic) on water. There should be three articles. Seaplanes should mention there are two main categories and link to them and not say much more. And the other two articles should remain separate. Floatplane should not #redirect here. Paul Beardsell 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The "rules and regs", as you say, don't differentiate between them in the US (I don't know JAA regs at all), but I agree that the two types are really their own distinct topics. Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough material for separate articles; what should probably be done instead is to rearrange this article somewhat to reflect the logical division of seaplanes into flying boats and floatplanes.--chris.lawson 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware that there is a separate flying boat article. Paul Beardsell 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early use of seaplanes

I'm not an aviation historian, but I'm pretty sure that seaplanes were popular in the early days because of the absence of landing fields (airports). If that is the case, it ought to be in the article. Lou Sander 22:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)