Talk:Gliding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Gliding is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2006.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Gliding as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Dutch language Wikipedias.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)
Maintained The following users are actively contributing on this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Jmcc150/maintenance

Please see Talk:Glider GrahamN

There are separate articles for Glider, Motor glider and Touring Motor glider. There is much redundancy and overlap between this article and those. I have moved some of the content to these articles to trim this article down closer to the 32KB guideline. More work is needed, so we can add more content to this article.

Ray Van De Walker: I have moved the text you added about about "rotor" in the "Glider" article to here. But I'm not sure about your statement that most sailplane altitude records were set by riding rotors. I could be wrong, but I thought most record-breaking flights were done in wave. GrahamN

Amos Shapira: You use "Recently" about powerfull powered gliders being authorized to tow. I'd like to suggest that if you want to make this text relevant for a long period then you change that to some year estimate (e.g. "as of 1995" or somesuch, I don't know the exact year).

Hi, Amos, thanks for the comment. You are right, of course. I'm afraid I don't know the year either. I didn't even know about this business of motor gliders towing other gliders until somebody added that sentence to the article. One excellent thing about Wikipedia is that there is no hierarchy of contributors. We are all equal here. So, if you see some error or failing in any article, please don't feel you have to consult or ask permission - just plunge in and edit the article to fix the problem. By the way, you can automatically sign your name with the date by typing four tildes (~) in a row. Like I'm about to do now: GrahamN 23:56 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)


André Somers: Hi, I have extended the text on launch methods a bit. Not only diesel engines are used in winches, also plain petrol or even LPG or natural gas. I have also added a subsection on the rubber band start method.

And recently electro motors have come into use because of their superior handling compared to combustion engines. Actually the sailplane winch warrants its own article by now, I think. -- Andreas B. 22:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The frequent mutation of "evinced" into "evidenced" amuses me. --Ghewgill 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with "evinced" as a word. However the sentence is rather inelegant. --Jmcc150 08:20 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Animal Flight & Gliding vs Soaring

Gliding and soaring are not the same thing (this artical says as much), so I really don't think "soar" or "soaring" should redirect here as if the two were synonymous. This is an important distinction in animal flight, and conflating the two doesn't make things more clear.

On the subject of animal flight, directing people to bird flight is not good enough, because many more animals than birds fly by gliding and soaring. This article should either discuss animals and other natural gliders and soarers (heck, some seed pods can glide), or be reworded to reflect that fact that many things may glide or soar, whether they are man-made or not .

I don't want to hack into this page myself, as I am no expert on aerodynamics, but I may well do it if you don't pay me ONE MILLION DOLLARS, or do something to correct this page's shortcomings, whichever is easiest. John.Conway 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I have set up Soaring as a disambiguation page. No knowledge of aerodynamics required. Please send me the million dollars, if it arrives. JMcC 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Move to Gliding (Aviation)

I think this page should be moved to Gliding (Aviation), and be linked to from a more generalised page on gliding. Any objections? John.Conway 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not from me, though the page should be Gliding (aviation) with a lower case "a". Martin 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
but very strong objections from me. In my opinion the sport of gliding is the main use of the word. To give you an idea of the popularity of an under-publicised activity, there are well over 100,000 active glider pilots in the world. There are hundreds of articles that link to Gliding and Gliders in the English Wikipedia alone. The vast majority are about the sport and only a few about bird and bat flight. It is a little like an article on London being moved to London (England). I have set up a disambiguation page instead. If the subject of animal flight needs a page called gliding, I suggest a page is created called Gliding (birds and bats). Incidentally I do recognise that the birds started gliding before the human race, which explains why they are still better at it. JMcC 10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There may be a different reason many more sport articles link to this page other than it being the main use - in that it doesn't do the job of describing gliding outside of aviation, so people have refrained from linking (I know I have). I just want to be able to link to something that describes the general aerodynamics of gliding. Gliding (birds and bats) is a poor compromise because may other things glide (pterosaurs, squirrels, frogs, lizards, seed pods, etc.) If the move was to happen, it main gliding article would maintain a section on the sport. We need some more input on this. John.Conway 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JMcC. --Guinnog 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No - it seems pretty clear to me that the aviation use of Gliding is the primary meaning. 'What links here' should always be your first port of call when considering a page move and is the fundamental basis of Wikipedia's article naming guidlines - ie. most editors should just be able to guess a link to an article without checking it. There are some incoming links (e.g. in bat and Hero System) where the process of gliding is intended but they are in the minority.

However, I agree that we need a more general page on the lift/drag aspects of the process of gliding, although much of this is infact covered in Bird flight. That could perhaps be at gliding (aeronautics) or possibly glide, which needs some work in any case. Note however that there is a completely different type of gliding that is a property of liquids, boats, skaters, dancers and snakes (according to my dictionary - your millage may vary), but that is probably best handled with a link to Wiktionary.

Similarly a page on hovering would be useful. AFIK only a handful of birds and insects. And you would also need to look at soaring. -- Solipsist 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gliding" is such a general term that it's silly to limit it to one use of the word. A similar situation, off the top of my head, would be Cycle. Take a look at that page, and then imagine if it were dedicated only to the sport of riding a bicycle (which has it's own page, Cycling. Using this example, a comprimise might be to create an entry for Glide (rather than Gliding) which discusses all of that word's various uses, with links to more specific articles.Dinoguy2 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with a page called "Glide", provided there is a link at the beginning to Gliding. JMcC 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review/FAC Notes

[edit] History

I think the history section probably ought to make some mention of the use of gliders in several combat missions in the Second World War. The best way is probably to just point over to Military glider for the main details, since it isn't that closely related to gliding as a sport. -- Solipsist 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aerobatics

I'm not especially familiar with aerobatic competitions, but isn't one of the features of gliding aerobatics in contrast to muscle aerobatics that the pilot has to be especially careful to perform maneuvers with the minimum loss of energy. I recall seeing one demonstration of aerobatics that principally involved beating back and forth above the runway climbing to perform a maneuver at each end. In effect carefully balancing the interplay of potential and kinetic energy. Excess drag in any maneuver would drain kinetic energy and limit the number of maneuvers that could be performed before landing. However, I don't know whether this is typical of aerobatic competitions. -- Solipsist 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

I have passed this article. It is comprehensive, fairly well-referenced, well-illustrated (I actually sort of like that picture of the cumulus clouds with its psychedelic combination of slightly blown highlights, almost impossibly cobalt blue and just a bit too much sharpening ... makes me think of this this song and well-organized. I couldn't find anything that was too egregious for me. Ultimate compliment: I learned a few things I didn't know that made me go "Hmm ..."

One thing to fix, though, if the editors involved want to seek FA status: make sure to include English equivalents for the metric units used when discussing speed records et al. Also, you might want to consider having the pictures alternate sides. This has been shown to improve readability as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes across the page.

Congratulations! Daniel Case 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable material moved over from the article page

[edit] Ballast

Moved from article page:

The idea of using ballast came from a pilot named George Tabery.

I'll concur with User:Jmcc150: this seems plausible, but needs a citable reference for inclusion. -- Solipsist 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Further research on rec.aviation.soaring produced a quote from the definitive three volume book on gliders since Daedalus by Martin Simons that ballast was first proposed in Germany in 1934. A Minimoa (pre-war type of glder) had tanks fitted though no year is given. A Schweizer 1-21 had ballast tanks in 1947, the year that George got his Siver C so it is possible he was the first in the USA. I have omitted first users from the article. JMcC 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hazards

Collisions with commercial aircraft are unlikely because glider access to the controlled airspace used by airliners is tightly restricted.

First, this is unsourced. Second, gliders w/o any radios/electrical equipment are perfectly legal and frequent along low-level arrival routes, at least at the East-coast U.S. where I flew them, which makes me feel this is a wrong piece of original research. --BACbKA 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit finding a source for a negative statement is trickier than a positive. A recent debate with the UK's Civil Aviation Authority over the universal fitting of transponders has only revealed one collision with an civil airliner (in France in 1999). This occurred in uncontrolled airspace and resulted in no injuries.[1] If there had been more, I have no doubt that the CAA's consultation paper [2] would have listed them. As it was, the CAA's case for transponders was embarrassingly flimsy, despite having the last sixty years of aviation accidents from throughout the world to choose from. The recent Minden incident with a bizjet also occurred in uncontrolled airspace. On that basis I felt that the statement 'collisions with commercial aircraft are unlikely' could be justified, though hard to reference. Secondly, I did not say that gliders could not penetrate controlled airspace. I said it was tightly restricted. There are many areas with low traffic volumes which gliders can penetrate (Class E & F) without radio contact. Class E only requires VFR and F only requires you to exercise caution. To my mind this is not really 'controlled' since since there is no need to contact a controller. Class D is another matter and I hope that your experience in the USA is similar and it really is controlled tightly. Radio contact is mandatory for me to enter Class D, and under ICAO rules it probably is in the USA also. There are places where higher categories of airspace can be penetrated but the rules get even tougher. I think a non-aviating reader would like to be reassured that the chances of an airliner, especially in controlled airspace, hitting a glider are vanishingly small. Do you have any suggestions how this could be phrased? JMcC 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been seen another remarkable collision with a DG 100 and a Tornado GAF fighter-bomber the report of which can be viewed here. (German)

I am sure it is interesting but I do not speak German. However the point of this particular discussion was to decide on the risks for commercial aircraft, in particular in controlled airspace. Did this collision with the military jet occur in controlled airspace? If so, was the glider under the direction of a controller? JMcC 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S., only class G is uncontrolled, A-E is controlled, and F is absent. See [3]. If an airliner doesn't look out and doesn't give right of way to glider, which they must, unless it's a head-on, in which case both must give way, there'll be a problem. You are right that class D requires radio contact; there might be exceptions by prior permission from the controlling authority (airshows/competitions/special events etc). I am 100% with you on advocating gliding as a safe activity to folks out there, but unless you can cite an external source actually evaluating the risks of a glider collision with an airliner, anything you phrase on the matter is original research. BACbKA 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar and style

I'm kind of surprised this is a featured article. In the two sections I read--the intro and winching sections--I noticed numerous runons and odd sounding sentences.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.246.41 (talk • contribs).

Well, speaking as the copy editor during the FA process and the editor who originally promoted this to GA status, some of the sentences in those sections were probably created, I determined, by machine translations of the German and/or Dutch articles.[citations needed] Lacking sufficient knowledge and/or time to review the originals, and not really knowing enough about the subject, I did what I could with them but avoided a wholesale rewrite. Daniel Case 05:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I can state that there are few sentences that have survived from the time before I started to work on it (May 2005). It might be poor English but none of it comes from the Dutch or German articles. There are many source material in English, if I had felt the need to copy them. I have been watching the other featured articles to see what happens. Each time someone, often anonymous, says that they wouldn't have supported it, usually giving no specific examples. I haven't had a chance this morning to review the changes since midnight but I wouldn't be surprised if some badly thought-out sentences have already been added by well-intentioned people. Of course it has imperfections; I challenge anyone to nominate the perfect article. JMcC 08:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That could have happened too, I'm sure. I haven't had time to review all the changes today save the vandalism reverts. Daniel Case 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the In Popular Culture section?

I am shocked beyond belief that this article does not contain an In Popular Culture section. It is a firmly established Wikipedia tradition that all articles must end with a long list of cultural trivia, including every time the subject was mentioned in a tv show, video game, garage band song, and so on. Surely gliding must have been mentioned in at least one episode of the Simpsons. Come on now, you all don't want this to be the only Wikipedia article which doesn't link to The Simpsons, do you? --Xyzzyplugh 09:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I know your tongue is firmly in your cheek, but don't encourage them. Just to satisfy you gliding has featured in .... Perhaps not. JMcC 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating

Just wanted to drop a note-- This is a great article. Congratulations to all who spent time and energy on it. For me, it was a fascinating introduction to a subject to which I had minimal previous exposure. After reading it, I feel both more informed and able to continue pursuing knowledge on my own on this subject-- in other words, basically ideal. Thanks so much. Gcolive 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC) PS-- Xyzzyplugh, >:D

You're welcome. Daniel Case 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You're also welcome from here. JMcC 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction re: weak link on tow rope

In every situation I've flown the tow rope has the weak link at the 'glider' end, not the 'tow plane' end. It would ruin your day to have a couple of hundred feet of tow rope come back and, say, wrap around your elevator... With the weak link at the 'glider' end, the tow plane doesn't experience any problems with their operations if a break occurs, considering that they're used to flying with the rope behind them without the glider anyways. Trivia - the 'weak link' is just a simple overhand knot in the rope; this creates weakness in the tow rope so that it will fail at the knot instead of at an unknown location. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.96.11 (talk • contribs).

I think practices vary country by country and so it is not necessary/possible to specify where the link is. It is certainly a formal device in some places and not just a knot. JMcC 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For American pilots, a safety link must be installed at both ends of the rope if its tenstile strength exceeds 200% of the glider's max weight, but to prevent fouling (as you pointed out), the link at the towplane end must be stronger (but no more than 25% stronger) than the glider end. See FAR §91.309 for details. -nbach 08:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] david john illingworth...?

I came to the gliding page, and saw that the first paragraph had an odd, rambling sentence about mr. illingworth. I went to edit the page to get rid of it, but the edit page didn't have any reference to DJI, and there was no record of it in the history page. Why did that happen?

Someone vandalized it, and it was reverted in four minutes. What probably happened was the revert happened between the time you loaded the page, and the time you hit edit. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia clear of vandalism! --TeaDrinker 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-country distances

I see that my change has been reverted -- fair enough! But I still think that the ordinary reader could come away with the impression that a 5,000 km XC occasionally occurs. After all, "in some cases thousands" implies _at least_ 2,000 km. Couldn't some form of words be found to avoid giving the impression that "many thousands" of km are flown?Ndsg 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to make a compact sentence that says routine flights are just a few hundred, 499 people have done 1,000 and a few people have flown even further. I was happy with your amendment, but to compromise with Dhaluza how about the following? "experienced pilots can fly many hundreds of kilometres before returning to their home airfields and occasionally flights over 1,000 kilometres are made." JMcC 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that strikes me as a definite improvement: I'd be happy to go along with it.
BTW Thanks for all your hard work in producing such an excellent page -- one, moreover, that seems to have impressed people who are not (yet?) in the gliding community.Ndsg 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite my downplaying the "thousands" of km in the original wording, I don't want to go to the other extreme! Perhaps it would be worth pointing out, either here or elsewhere in the article, the fact that on Day 1 of the 2005 Euro-championships at Räyskälä in Finland a 1,011 km task was set—& completed by 17 contestants. Ndsg 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I also strongly disagree with discounting the length of flights. On the OLC there were about 100 fligts of >1000km and 6 of more than 2000km in 2006, and in 2005 also, so this is actully happening more than just occasionally. I have personally made several 1000 km flights (BTW, the average OLC flight has been almost exactly 300km for many years). So I think the previous wording was technically accurate, and I don't understand why it was changed. Dhaluza 12:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, congratulations on your epic flights! You know, & we know, that long flights very rarely exceed 2,000km—and nothing below 2,000km qualifies as "thousands of kilometres". The average reader might well think that "in some cases thousands", means 3, 4 or 5 thousand.
Surely what we should be trying to do is to give a realistic impression of the normal range of XC flights (rather than record-breaking flights, which are treated separately). The reader should come away with something like the following impression:
  • typical flights: a few hundred km (200-300km)
  • exceptional flights: several hundred km (500-750km)
  • outstanding flights: over 1,000km
  • record-breaking flights: over 2,000km.

PS Having just returned to this page, I now see that the Finnish comp with its 1,000km+ task was already mentioned. Sorry I didn't notice it before! NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Thousands of kilometres" simply gives the wrong impression IMO. Ndsg 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight computers

In the Maximizing speed subsection of the Cross-country section reference is made to "flight computers". I wondered why there was no link to any article on this important topic—only to discover that there is no such article!

I wonder whether anyone feels like taking on the challenge of writing this article. (No, I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the technical expertise to do so myself!) It has all the makings of an interesting article:

  • history (starting with the "John Willy" plastic calculator)
  • flight directors (the early Cambridge instruments)
  • modern developments, PDAs linked to GPS, open-source programs, etc
  • theory & practice of final glides

In the meantime, perhaps the reference in the main Gliding article could be expanded slightly. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

... & talking of final glides, maybe something about the issues involved in calculating them? Just a thought. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of linking to "mathematics" and "theory": these are both words known to any English-speaking reader of the article (this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary!). OTOH, the word "optimizing", not currently linked, will not be familiar to everyone.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your question on my Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver badge

Call me pedantic, but ... The wording was a bit ambiguous, & seemed to imply that the 50km could be flown in separate flights. I've now made it quite clear what was meant. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight issues

It isn't mentioned in the SSA FAQ, but it's come to my attention that weight restrictions are a significant barrier to learning how to glide (one source told me that no operation near NYC could train a person over 235 pounds). Could someone knowledgeable provide information on this point? 204.186.59.81 00:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/i/Talk%7EGliding_23da.html"