Talk:Rutan Quickie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
[edit] Merger
From User talk:Ericg and User talk:Keenan Pepper:
These are two different articles, and should remain as such. What you've proposed is the equivalent of merging Cessna with Cessna 172. Quickie Aircraft was the manufacturer which built Rutan Quickie kits. Please consider reverting your own edit. ericg ✈ 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I won't revert my own edit, that's ridiculous. You should say why you disagree on the article talk page.
- Articles don't have to have exactly the same topic to be merged. The question is not whether they are exactly the same thing or related but different things, the question is whether they could be better presented as one article or two. Just look at their first sentences. If Quickie Aircraft ever made any aircraft other than the Quickie, you should edit the article to reflect that. —Keenan Pepper 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. Merging the two articles won't necessarily create a better presentation. Presenting manufacturer and product on the same page will mess with the categories, as well as create some level of confusion. While the level of pop culture recognition is certainly different, do you propose merging De Lorean Motor Company with De Lorean DMC-12 just because it was the only car ever produced? The Quickie was one of the first truly popular composite homebuilt aircraft, and both articles could be expanded. It's only a matter of time. ericg ✈ 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Wow, that's a good example; I never knew that about the De Lorean. I see your point. —Keenan Pepper 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
yes there should be a different artical bettween the producer and the product, even though there is only one product of the company. a quickie spin off was created in the early 90's i think by a company called "Eagle Aircraft" i think they're bassed in Perth Australia, but i am not %100 sure about atm i can find quite a bit of information on it should you be interested, they actualy have made quite a few side by side, aircraft that look REALY funny including a tadem wing aircraft that also has a traditional tail.
[edit] Canard Vs. Tandem Wing
Two questions from a newbie : why is a tandem wing different to a biplane? It's not explained anywhere I can find. Can the forward wing of a tandem wing be a canard? I thought the dfeinition of a canard winglet was 'does not provide lift'. Thanks in advance for any answers. David.j.james 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- You bring up a good point, as neither the biplane nor the tandem wing articles mention the why, they just say they aren't the same. So, I'll look into doing some editing. In the meantime, the difference is that in a biplane, the lift from both wings is located roughly in the same place fore-and-aft, in relation to the center of gravity. (There are a few exceptions, like the Beech Staggerwing, but even there, the center of lift is still relatively close.) The point of a tandem wing is that you spread the center of lift of each wing farther apart, thereby greatly extending the CG envelope, making the plane much more stable and, theoretically, safer. That has always been Burt's goal, safer aircraft. And yes, sometimes the forward wing of a tandem wing plane can be considered a canard (aeronautics), although, strictly speaking, a canard functions in the same role as a horizontal stabilizer, to stabilize the pitching moment around the CG. Hope this helps. Akradecki 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
