Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. The following comments have been left for this page: The article is basically excellent, covering a sensible chunk of information, rigorously and in detail. I have one, rather strong, objection : the name of the article - Fixed Wing Aircraft. This not a correct designation ; instead the article talks about Airplanes or Aeroplanes - and there's the rub. In an attempt to be "international" the term Fixed-Wing Aircraft (which is unknown and inaccurate) has been used. Sometimes this is abbreviated to "Aircraft" (when talking specifically about aeroplanes), which is even worse. The correct definition of an aeroplane is : [1] has wings, [2] has no rotor, [3] is heavier than air, and [4] is self-propelled. Even this set of criteria is unsatisfactory in identifying some novel aircraft such as the FanWing, lifting-body aircraft, powered gliders, and the swing-wing aeroplanes. I propose the article should be re-titled back to its original title, Airplanes, which is overwhelmingly the main topic of the article. Mark: 8/10. -- OrangUtanUK 12:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (edit)

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Can anyone actually read this article? The grammar needs work. I fixed the first two sentences before realizing I can just look up airplanes on Google and never come back here.

[edit] Scramjet

This term needs to be defined in the article! Currently, it is used but never defined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Aircraft/plane

Someone has changed all 'aircraft' to 'airplanes'... why?!

Further as a pilot, the international standard for all aircraft is knots, and Feet, not kilometres, and metres.

And I think calibration for instruments is based on inches mercury, not milibars, although I've heard ASOS in Canada list both.

So I am confused as to why then does wiki list all the speeds distances and altitude in S.I.?

Because wiki isn't for pilots, it's for the general public. Also, aircraft (imo)is an umbrella term including rotary wing. 222.153.97.55 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need help with terminology

Could anyone help me with the electronics of the plane? Specifically, i am looking for the technical name of the floor lights that are typical of commercial planes. If anyone knows suppliers of such item, please let me know as well. Many thanks Dragonlord kfb 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

According to freepatentsonline, the patent for the floor lights is "Emergency egress illuminator and marker light strip". "Emergency floor lighting strips" appears to be the common term used on several airline websites. For a supplier, take a look at Honeywell Aerospace Electronics - Lighting and Electronics. Reader Keith 02:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirrored aircraft image

There are two images of a 747 taking off. One is Image:Air new zealand 747-400.jpg

Then there is onother one that is the mirror image of the first one, with the inscription "Air New Zealand" manipulated such that it looks right. Note that the landscape in the background is also mirrored, so that the imagte has clearly been manipulated. I guess somebody liked to make a joke here.

Image:Air new zealand 747-400-espelhado.jpg

The original image was uploaded June 2, 2004 by User:JazzNZ The manipulated image was uploaded much later, on July 20, 2005 by User:FML

The second one is labeled

• This file or image is redundant to Image:Air new zealand 747-400.jpg

I would suggest not to use an image that is labeled redundand because it will be deleted some day. Replacing dedundand images is routine maintenance.

Also it is said that:

• "espelhado" seems to be esperanto for mirrored image. Now we need to know if this is redundant or if it is needed like this?! --Paddy 18:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "espelhado" is Portuguese and means mirrored. Andreas 18:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• • A better explanation would have helped. Also "redundand" is NOT listed as an article in wiktionary or wikipedia. "dedundand" isn't in wiktionary either, it won't even come up on google. PLEASE use the English language, which is the language this article is in on explanations, and make them more complete to begin with to avoid confusion. Thanks! Zotel - the Stub Maker 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the policies regarding redundant images in commons in Commons:Village_pump/Deleting_of_images#General_discussion_on_policy_of_redundant_image, and a category with all images labelled "redundant" at Commons:Category:Redundant. Sorry for the typographical error (dedundand should be redundant). Andreas 14:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. I've had my share of those for sure... =) I got confused with the edits, and the typo and all that, I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on... Thanks for fixing it anyhow, I didn't even think of trying to translate the image desc's from portugese, I had assumed since it was a featured article (at least I think thats where I got it) there wouldn't be problems with it. Ahh oversight, I know you well. Now stay out of my mirror. ;) Zotel - the Stub Maker 19:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spelling

Back in the dim and distant past, there was an article at aeroplane. This article was frequently moved by those offended with the title to airplane, but it was always moved back and the usual AE/BE spelling arguments continued. That was until someone decided to merge the article into aircraft, in order to stop the bickering. Laterly the article has been recreated here at fixed-wing aircraft, but it appears to use the US spelling airplane throughout. The end result, another defeat for BE spelling. Jooler 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So you are bringing this up why? The spelling is addressed in the very beginning of the article. If you want to go thru and replace half the airplanes with aeroplanes, that is fine with me, although "aircraft" would probably be a better replacement term. When translating the article from Portugese, fixing the ameri-bias in terminology was not on my mind =) Maybe I will go thru and fix it up at some point myself... maybe. Zotel - the Stub Maker 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that some people insist on Americanising the article's spellings. Surely it should be obvious that, since the actual title of this article has been constructed as a compromise, then the word "aircraft" should be used throughout? The issue of the spelling is addressed at the very beginning - there is no need to use either variant through the article. Simply put: The word "airplane" does not exist in British English.. and I don't know how the word "aeroplane" exists in America. However, the word "aircraft" exists quite happily, and is used in both variants of the language. So this happy compromise should be used. I tire of having to keep this page on my watch list in order to revert American kiddies who think that they should encorce their spellings because there are more of them. Wikipedia is international. EuroSong 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

you did NOT only use aircraft, you swichted to aeroplane, specifically for YOUR regionalism. International does NOT mean "everyone else but the Americans"!!! Britisms and Americanisms are SUPPOSED to be equal, and your intial "aeroplane" change was bad faith in my POV. Glad to see you didnt repeat it though. Better than the last bunch that came thru here anyhow. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that ONE instance was just my reaction to the American arrogance which seems to be spread throughout Wikipedia, eh? We only have one English-language WP: "en". Therefore all the English speaking countries of the world must share it. We should be as international as possible, by finding neutral, mutually acceptable words. It does provoke a reaction, when I see Americans thinking that just because there are more of them than there are British people, then they can force through anything they want. That is not the case. Now, I am just trying to keep the article neutral. EuroSong ^talk 15:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to British arrogance? I'm sure the American colonists thought the British were arrogant, but the British probably thought they were looking after their own best interests. Whoever is the dominant force in the world is considered "arrogant" by others, that is just how history and attitudes seem to run. I am not sure that is the objective reality however. Methinks most people consider their POV superior, whether they are British, American, Aussie, whateve. Inherent bias is not automatically arrogange. Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The AIRPLANE is an AMERICAN invention so it should be spelt airplane and not "Aeroplane". God damn, wikipedia has had a horrible European bias lately. User:Daniel_Chiswick 26 March, 2007

It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of inclusiveness. All that the Wikipedia's current policies suggest is that any given page use American or British throughout, rather than switching back and forth. On a related note, arguing for one form of spelling over another is likely best achieved through a post that properly spells such common words as "American" and avoids profanity. MrZaius^talk 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LIFT

There is a discrepency between the 'Flight (lift)' page and the 'Main article: Lift (force)'. Flight (lift) section says "When air passes over the wing, it is forced to pass underneath or over top of it. The length of the wing is larger on the top portion, so according to laws of aerodynamics, the air flow becomes faster, to compensate the larger distance to be travelled. This significantly diminishes the pressure of air on the wing; the difference of pressure under and over the wings creates the necessary lift for flight." Then, the 'Main article: Lift (force)' says: "Despite the fact that this explanation is probably the most common of all, it must be made clear that it is utterly false." Can these be reconciled?

[edit] Theories of lift

I realise this is a contentious area and I really would hate to see the controversy affect the quality of the article here. I think the present version is a little too emphatic on debunking the Bernoulli theory, but the version I just reverted was far too POV the other way, verbose and sloppily written. No offence. Can anyone either defuse the slight POV in the current version or synthesise the two views into an expanation that we can all live with? Guinnog 18:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't "lift" be changed to "elevator" ? Eregli bob (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed-wing aircraft...come on!

Why does this page have the title it does. We're not perfectionists here. An airplane is an airplane. I'm never heard the term "Fixed-wing aircraft" in my life. I don't understand why people feel the need to place an article such as this at a page with such a title. → J@red  21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gyrocopters, helicopters, etc are not fixed wing, hence the distinction. Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's why they get their own pages. Could someone please tell me why airplane redirects here? Does "fixed-wing aircraft" umbrella any other aircraft other than the traditional airplane? If not, then I propose it be moved back to Airplane. → J@red  01:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, there is also a second reason it is like this - In the introduction you see aeroplane and airplane. Apparently long long ago in a glaxay far far away, people arguing between the two. Huge arguments, nastiness, etc. So eventually we got down to the technically correct and above all NUETRAL term fixed wing aircraft. This helps keep the issue from coming up again. Of course it does bring up your issue, which does have some merit, but apparently we can't go back without a bunch of people arguing over Americanisms and Britisms. =/ Zotel - the Stub Maker 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's fine as it is, then. → J@red  14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a rotary wing aircraft and a fixed wing aircraft page. The distinction seems perfectly clear to me. --Mmx1 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But there are also the Swing-Wing aeroplane (an aeroplane whose wings are not fixed) and the Heliplane (a rotary-wing aircraft with fixed wings). -- OrangUtanUK 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the article - fixed versus rotary describes whether the movement of the lift surfaces is responsible for the production of lift. Hence a swing-wing is a fixed-wing aircraft. The Heliplane would be hybrid as it relies on both methods of lift production. --Mmx1 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We might as individuals not be perfectionists, but as a group, on wikipedia we must endavor for perfection. Technical correctness is of the utmost importance to a reference source (as Wikipedia is).Pubuman 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actually on Wikipedia, we strive for perfection. Fixed-winged aircraft makes perfect sense as opposed to a rotary-wing aircraft. If you think that this title is bad (which it isn't) go complain about Football (Soccer).

[edit] Making Aircraft into a page that explains the differences?

Following the model of the German site, why not turn the Airplane article from a redirect into a page that outlines the different types, and then directs to the main articles, which would be rotary, fixed, etc.

The OED defn of aeroplane is: "A heavier-than-air flying-machine supported by such planes or wings and mechanically driven."

--Mmx1 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know a tool that will do mass translation? Google stops 20% of the way through and babelfish breaks on it. I know the subject well enough to rewrite any pieces, but I want to peruse it for guidance on scope and organization. --Mmx1 03:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I used babelfish translating most of the material in this article from the Portugese version, with simple cut and paste. I mucked up a fair amount of wording, but I got probably 90% plus of what I wanted that way... Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Fixed-Wing Aircraft

Hi, sorry to be a pain but in this wiki, it is (surely) important to distinguish between an aircraft and an airplane or aeroplane. An aeroplane (my pref., I'm British) is [1] powered, and [2] heavier than air, and [3] fixed wing, and [4] not rotary wing. This therefore excludes gliders, airships, helicopters, and gyrodynes. The term aircraft would include all four.

I can agree that some information about gliders would be appropriate in the Fixed-Wing wiki, because point [1] is not relevant, but I think points [2] to [4] are essential if we want to keep this wiki rigorous.

OrangUtanUK 7-June-2006 16:06 utc

Hi, OrangUtanUK - please see the message I left on your talk page. "Aircraft" is just fine - this has been the consensus on this page for quite a while, I believe. Let's keep Wikipedia international, without bias towards either side of the Atlantic, eh? :) EuroSong ^talk 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi back ! Unfortunately, aircraft is not the international form of the word, it's a generic term that also includes gliders, hot air balloons, helicopters, autogyros, gyrodynes, the Space Shuttle, and Harry Potter's broomstick. I strongly believe we must be exact in our terminology. This isn't about spelling. :o) OrangUtanUK 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V 0.5 nom

This article was nominated for wikipedia version 0.5. The topic is very important but I failed it because of having no references. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yes "fixed wing Aircraft" is fine

yes, fixed wing aircraft is better, because it separates types of aircraft that either have no wings, or have wing that move, i.e. a helicopter (a helicopter rotors really are wings they just move in cirles for lift)that is all

Results 1 - 10 of about 83,800,000 for airplane
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,930,000 for aeroplane
Results 1 - 10 of about 744,000 for "fixed-wing aircraft"

[edit] Safety section

This section needs some serious help. For starters, it needs some factual citations for its claims, especially in light of claims that disagree with the Nall Report (which, although targeted primarily at GA, is reflective of aviation as a whole). For instance, adverse weather is not the third-largest cause of aircraft accidents. Weather does not simply "happen" to airplanes; the pilots choose (poorly) to put themselves into situations where weather presents a hazard, or the pilot may fail to use proper technique in dealing with the otherwise benign weather conditions (e.g., flying an instrument approach procedure incorrectly). Also, the section cites "human error" as being the biggest cause and goes on to define this as either pilot or controller error. The number of controller error-related accidents each year is miniscule compared to the number of accidents overall and compared to the number of accidents caused by pilot error. It seems to me this phrasing puts a disproportionate share of the blame on controllers.

I think the whole section could stand a rewrite, but even some simple re-phrasing would help matters.--chris.lawson 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think downbursts are a common source of crashes on takeoff and landing if I recall correctly, and they are notoriously hard to predict or track, as I recall. From what, probably Discover or History channels. So that would be at least one instance where it is not reckless pilot choice, plus add in statistical comparison of "risky weather" vs actual crashes and probably the percentage is so low it isn't considered risky? If I knew good aviation sources I would look it up, but I don't want to just google it from Lord knows where... Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The conditions conducive to microburst formation are not such that a prudent pilot would simply go flying and be caught by surprise. See microburst for more on that particular phenomenon. Accidents due to microbursts are extremely rare; the vast majority of weather-related accidents are CFIT or in-flight breakup due to overstressing the airframe (typically caused by penetration of weather the plane has no business penetrating in the first place, or the pilot's failure to recognise something like a "graveyard spiral" until it's far too late).--chris.lawson 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say so, like I said its a vauge recollection from long ago. If you can source things, be bold by all means and pop it in there. That's what I did when I comepletely re-wrote the article last year... =) Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How many planes crash in a year in percentage?Hengyu 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the safety section should be split in half, putting all the safety measures and statistics in one topic, and putting all the crash statistics in another topic. They're similar but a user that goes on wikipedia before a flight in order to check the safety of an airplane probably wont be thrilled at seeing the crash statistics right next to it. Who are we to shove this information down their throat? Plus, if we made a seporate section for crashs we could include famous crashes in with it if it's too small.

[edit] Fastest

Aren't there several planes faster than the Mig listed in the article as "fastest", it only goes mach2.7 or so.Hopquick 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed-wing aircraft?

Why isn't this article simply called "plane"? —Ruud 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a look at plane? The aviation sense is by no means the only meaning. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure it can be moved to plane (disambiguation). —Ruud 01:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Can you conclusively demonstrate that the aviation sense is predominant? older ≠ wiser 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, otherwise this page can be moved to plane (aviation). —Ruud 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A Google test shows about 315 million hits for "plane", and about 200 million for "plane -aircraft -airplane", so I'd say that non-aviation uses of "plane" seem to be dominant. However, as "plane" is an abbreviation, I would oppose such a move in the first place, as it's very much an informal terminology.--chris.lawson 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Not entirely sure if this is relevant but in australia, which is a commonwealth country, airplane is more used than aeroplane, parhaps aeroplane is more european? In french its aéroport... Changed introduction paragraph. 58.165.254.138 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material added by User:Satyavrat.chaturvedi that I removed for inappropriate tone--please review and see if any belongs here or elsewhere.

"Orville Wright demonstrated on December 17th 1903 that it was possible for a ‘manned heavier than air machine to fly’. But, in 1895, eight years earlier, the Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade had designed a basic aircraft called Marutsakthi (meaning Power of Air) based on Vedic technology and had it take off unmanned before a large audience in the Chowpathy beach of Bombay. The importance of the Wright brothers lies in the fact, that it was a manned flight for a distance of 120 feet and Orville Wright became the first man to fly. But Talpade’s unmanned aircraft flew to a height of 1500 feet before crashing down and the historian Evan Koshtka, has described Talpade as the ‘first creator of an aircraft’.

According to scholar Ratnakar Mahajan who wrote a brochure on Talpade. ‘Being a Sanskrit scholar interested in aeronautics, Talpade studied and consulted a number of Vedic treatises like Brihad Vaimanika Shastra of Maharishi Bharadwaja Vimanachandrika of Acharya Narayan Muni Viman yantra of Maharish Shownik Yantra Kalp by Maharishi Garg Muni Viman Bindu of Acharya Vachaspati and Vimana Gyanarka Prakashika of Maharishi Dhundiraj’. This gave him confidence that he can build an aircraft with mercury engines. One essential factor in the creation of these Vedic aircraft was the timing of the Suns Rays or Solar energy (as being now utilised by NASA) when they were most effective to activate the mercury ions of the engine. Happily for Talpade Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwad of Baroda a great supporter of the Sciences in India, was willing to help him and Talpade went ahead with his aircraft construction with mercury engines. One day in 1895 (unfortunately the actual date is not mentioned in the Kesari newspaper of Pune which covered the event) before an curious scholarly audience headed by the famous Indian judge/ nationalist/ Mahadeva Govin-da Ranade and H H Sayaji Rao Gaekwad Talpade had the good fortune to see his un manned aircraft named as ‘Marutsakthi’ take off, fly to a height of 1500 feet and then fall down to earth.

But this success of an Indian scientist was not liked by the Imperial rulers. Warned by the British Government the Maharaja of Baroda stopped helping Talpade. It is said that the remains of the Marutsakthi were sold to ‘foreign parties’ by the relatives of Talpade in order to salvage whatever they can out of their loans to him. Talpade’s wife died at this critical juncture and he was not in a mental frame to continue with his researches. But his efforts to make known the greatness of Vedic Shastras was recognised by Indian scholars, who gave him the title of Vidya Prakash Pra-deep.

Talpade passed away in 1916 un-honoured, in his own country.

As the world rightly honours the Wright Brothers for their achievements, we should think of Talpade, who utilised the ancient knowledge of Sanskrit texts, to fly an aircraft, eight years before his foreign counterparts. "

Added by user Satyavrat.chaturvedi removed by user KP Botany 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history

on the english wikipedia the british invented everything, even god, but there are different stories told elsewhere, including in the Glider article. it would be fair if chinese and other attemps were pointed (List of early flying machines). Cliché Online 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

do you fancy a bum? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.44.52 (talk) 02:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flying weapons, drones and UAVs

No mention is made (yet) of fixed wing flying weapons, drones, cruise missiles and UAVs. Any takers? Binksternet 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twin-hulled planes

Are twin hulls heard of in planes? Scaled Composites White Knight Two is apparently gonna be one — Jack · talk · 03:46, Sunday, 26 August 2007

Planes with twin booms come close. P-38, sort of. P-61, sort of. P-82 Twin Mustang even more so. Binksternet 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Twin booms, gotcha. Cheers for that, there are apparently quite a few! — Jack · talk · 04:36, Sunday, 26 August 2007

[edit] Merge

• Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces
• Aircraft flight control systems

I think that the FPWCS article has enough content and well, I like it a lot. I think it's informative, unique, and just plain cool. Encyclopedic? Sure. It is a very specific circumstance, no doubt, but it happens to be a very commonly thought about one and so it's more than just an odd state of affairs to FAPWCS, it's sort of an aviator's dream and nightmare, and it's commonly thought about especially with regard to airline incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.8.124 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur that it should not be merged here, but Aircraft flight control systems is a better place for it. This article is long enough as it is. The title, Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces, is a bit misleading to, as it can imply the the plane either never had control surfaces, or that they somehow fell off. Also, the title is much too long. - BillCJ 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm merging the Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces to Aircraft flight control systems per a previous discussion on the latter page, and my added consensus. - BillCJ 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Applications

I would like to add a section that lists and explains all specific applications or uses for aircrafts and possibly which kind of aircrafts are used for which purposes. Things such as recreational flights (sight-seeing), crop spraying, military purposes, parcels (mail) and equipment transportation, commercial passengers transportation, hurricanes studying, parachuting/skydiving, etc. RayLast (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The current (12/12/2007) version of this article states that the term is derived from Greek αέρας (aéras-) ("air") and -plane. I am not an expert but it looks more reasonable to me that the -plane is derived from Greek πλανάμαι (planámai) ("wander"). I also think that air is derived from the ancient Greek word αήρ and not the modern Greek αέρας. However I will not modify the article since I am not 100% sure about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.74 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Section

I recently provided a good article (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html) which gives a statistically accurate analysis of the safety of airplanes, but I misquoted it. I quoted passenger-hour instead of passenger-journeys. This is the quote that should be used:

"Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis."

I tried to edit the section but it was rejected. Anyone who has the ability to edit this section would be in the right to include the above quote, thanks.

Autonova, 08.02.08 14.28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airplane

The airplane was invented in USA, so shouldn't we be using that term? It's also far more common than "fixed-wing aircraft". I know this subject has come up before, and the move failed, but the article should really be moved. Malamockq (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact the first recorded MANNED flight was in the USA, but the invention of the craft was certainly not there, or at that time. Many aeronautical experiments with assorted craft were being carried out around the world.81.145.242.132 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

• Actually, the earlier aeroplanes were unsuccessful, but it was a manned airplane that first successfully flew. If you want to use the name applied to a series of unsuccessful designs, that's your choice. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It matters not one bit where something was invented. The fact is, this is an international encyclopædia for the English-speaking world, and articles must be named internationally. If this were usa.wikipedia.org then it could use all American words - but it's not. EuroSong ^talk 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion, but WP policy and guidelines, specifically WP:ENGVAR, strongly disagrees with you:

The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines.

The four guidelines are:

• Consistency within articles
• Strong national ties to a topic
• Retaining the existing variety
• Opportunities for commonality

Inline with the last guideline, WP:AIR has, by consensus, chosen to use fixed-wing aircraft as the preferable alternative to either airplane or aeroplane, in most aircraft-related articles.

- BillCJ (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safety - Airplanes ARE safer

The contention that passenger hours is a better comparison than passenger miles traveled doesn't make any sense to me.

If I'm considering a trip from SF to New York -- the safety question is:

"On which mode of transportation am I most likely to die during the trip?"

Since the goal of almost all traveling is to get from point A to point B -- not to spend time traveling.

Now if you were comparing the safety of hang gliding to white water rafting I would agree that accidents per hour is the relevant statistic -- since those activities are usually done for fun and so you'd want to evaluate your fun to risk ratio. Whereas for car and plane travel the relevant consideration is miles to risk ratio. [Unless of course you're taking purely recreational flying or driving.] 76.202.192.91 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that passengers per mile is a better statistic, although all should be included and are useful. Certainly, the contention that passengers per mile is unfair is false or needs to be qualified. I edited the section to reflect this. I left the numbers from the previous version unchanged, but there seems to be a contradiction. According to the previous author(s), the risk by distance is 20 less for planes than for cars, yet the risk per hour is 10 higher for planes than for cars. This would imply that planes cover 200 times as much distance per unit of time as cars, something which is impossible (cars don't travel 2-3 mph). In Freakonomics, I read that the risk per hour is approximately equal for planes and for cars, which would make more sense, because it would imply that cars cover about 40-60 mph. Some sources for the exact numbers would be nice. Morphling89 (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be beneficial in this discussion if all involved would read this source that is cited in the article,

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html. Since it is the New Scientist, it's hard to ignore.

Here are the numbers given in the source (apologies for no html experience)

Deaths per 100 million km

Plane...0.03

Rail...0.1

Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys

Plane...55

Car...4.5

Train...2.7

Crucially, I think it a fair point (indeed, it appears in the article) to say that an individual would prefer not to die at the end of a plane journey, after the several hours and countless kilometres of perfectly safe travel. Indeed, most accidents occur during take-off and landing, so this situation isn't exactly unheard of.

Thus, when an individual makes a journey by any method of transport, the most important thing is that the individual survives the journey, not the most number of hours or kilometres during the journey.

By this logic, I hope you agree with the New Scientist writer in that the Deaths per journey is the fairest statistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Invention info.

There's no information on the page about who invented it, where it was invented, when it was invented or how it was invented. Can someone add something on here? Lil.chocoholic.62 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's covered in the Aviation history article, and in good detail. No need to cover it twice. - BillCJ (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Many fixed-wing aircraft may be remotely controlled or robot controlled.[citation needed]"

I'm removing the citation tag. The fact is obviously true, all it takes to prove it is a trip to any super market and a quick look in the toy section. It would be nice if there was a citation, but the tag implies that the fact is reasonably disputed, which it isn't.67.160.147.2 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Few Comments Regarding Terminology

I would like at the beginning of my post to summarize my position regarding the spelling issue. I do not care at all. I do, however, very much want the issue not to harm the technical accuracy of Wikipedia. In my opinion, it has improved such in one way, and harmed it in two others. I here outline each.

We have been reminded multiple times how this page came to have its name: as a compromise between airplane and aeroplane. Many people, both for and against the title “fixed wing aircraft”, hold that this is an unfortunate, either unavoidable or avoidable, circumstance. This is not my view. “fixed wing aircraft” is the most accurate term, and while it is very obscure among non pilots, it is in common usage among pilots. In this way the spelling conflict has serendipitously improved the accuracy of Wikipedia, much to my delight.

However, a different compromise, the use of the word “aircraft” to refer to fixed wing aircraft in the fixed wing aircraft article, instead of the more commonly used and suitably short word “airplane” or “aeroplane”, is an atrocity. While I support compromise, I do not support inaccuracy as a result of compromise. “Aircraft” is a term referring to any vehicle, that moves through the air by interaction with the air, either aerodynamically or aerostatically. This includes ____planes, fixed wing gliders, helicopters, autogyros, gyrodynes, tiltrotors, rotary wing gliders, tiltwings, ornithopters, hot air and gas balloons, and airships. The Wikipedia page on aircraft or any dictionary will confirm this definition. Using such a term to refer only to fixed wing aircraft is a travesty.

Finally, because of the inability to choose a spelling of the word aeroplane or airplane, there exists no such article. The existence of “fixed wing aircraft” while applaudable, does not replace an article on ____planes. As any dictionary will testify, a plane has to be powered, while fixed wing aircraft includes both powered and unpowered vehicles. At least a stub ought to exist to make this clear. In the absence of such a page, many other pages refer to “airplane” or “aeroplane” to mean what the word really means, powered fixed wing aircraft, and then links it to “fixed wing aircraft”. The page could be called “aeroplane”, “airplane”, “plane (aviation)” “powered fixed wing aircraft”, or even “airplane or aeroplane”, but it really ought to exist.

To summarize:

1. An “aircraft” is a vehicle which is able to move through the air by interaction with the air (buoyancy or aerodynamic lift).

2. A “fixed wing aircraft” is a heavier-than-air aircraft where movement of the wings in relation to the aircraft is not used to generate lift.

3. A ____plane is a powered fixed wing aircraft.

4. In my opinion, the page fixed wing aircraft should retain its name.

5. In my opinion, the references in the fixed wing aircraft page to “aircraft” to mean ____plane should be change to either "aeroplane" or "airplane".

6. In my opinion, a page about ____planes should be created, under any name.

I am sad to see that this conflict has so affected Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. Perhaps there should just be a coin toss. I don't know, but this issue needs some form of resolution. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting points. I will reply to them:

1. You are correct.

2. You are correct.

3. You are correct.

4. You are absolutely correct.

5. I disagree. The international compromise we have now does not only apply to the title of the article: it also applies to its content. Any attempt to change "aircraft" into "aeroplane" will invite changes from Americans, and any attempt to change "aircraft" into "airplane" will invite changes from other English speakers. Therefore to carry through your suggestion would be to create a less stable article, inviting an edit war. In fact, edit wars would be a lot easier, because it's much easier for people to change words in an article than it is for them to move it to a different title.

6. If you want to create an article about ____planes, then its title could only possibly be "Powered fixed-wing aircraft" - as per your own definition in point #3. Any deviation would invite edit warring, for exactly the same reasons as we're all familiar with. And it would also invite derision and humour from those people who say that the current title is convoluted and unnecessary.

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I don't think it's a big problem. The use of the word "aircraft" through the article is correct. Even though it is not quite as precise as you'd like it to be, in that it does not specify in each and every instance which type of aircraft is being referred to, it is a small point - and it's always possible to pick it up from the context of the sentence. So - yes, I know it's not perfect. But it remains the best we can possibly do, in an international encyclopædia. EuroSong ^talk 07:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the word "aircraft"; the usage is not technically incorrect as planes are a type of aircraft. But I still think that it's important that the distinction between fixed-wing aircraft and plane not be lost. Wikipedia is in general very good about keeping its pages on aircraft configurations properly defined, even when it means making mention of obscure aircraft like autogyros and ornithopters on big, important pages. Anyway, I changed the mention of planes in "plane" and "airplane (disambiguation)" to speak of "powered" fixed-wing aircraft. Now The sentence, "Fixed-wing aircraft are called airplanes in the U.S. and Canada, and aeroplanes in Commonwealth countries and Ireland (excluding Canada).", in this article should be rewritten. How about, "Fixed wing aircraft are more commonly referred to as "airplanes" in the US and Canada, and "aeroplanes" in Commonwealth countries and Ireland, although this term refers only to powered aircraft, excluding gliders". Good? Something else? And then I'll write that "powered fixed-wing aircraft" page, and direct links currently linking to here to there, where appropriate.

It would be nice though if someone else would start the page and even just leave it blank, as I'm unregistered and can't start pages. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing

"Fixed-wing aircraft are called airplanes in the U.S. and Canada, and aeroplanes in Commonwealth countries and Ireland (excluding Canada). These terms are derived from Greek αέρας (aéras-) ("air") and -plane.^[1] The current British word is the older of the two terms, dating back to the mid-late 19th century.^[2]"

to "The most commonly used term is "aeroplane" (in Ireland and Commonwealth countries excluding Canada), or "airplane" (In the US and Canada), which refers to any fixed wing aircraft powered by propellers or jet engines. The word derives from the Greek αέρας (aéras-) ("air") and -plane.^[3] The spelling "aeroplane" is the older of the two, dating back to the mid-late 19th century.^[4]"

I feel the change improves accuracy and sentence fluency, and makes it sound like less of a British versus American war right in the opening paragraph. I made this change once before, and it was reverted without explanation by BillCJ. Please do not revert the change again without first discussing. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOT used

A fixed-wing aircraft is a heavier-than-air aircraft where movement of the wings in relation to the aircraft is NOT used to generate lift. First 131.53.128.23 and then BillCJ removed the word "not", and by doing so defined the topic of this article as the exact oposite of what it actually means. I am changing it back, and please, no one revert. Thank you. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have helped if you used an edit summary. When someone just deletes something, it is usually vandalism, but when they leave an edit summary adequately explaining what they are doing and why, it is less likely to be removed. Provided it's accurate, that is.--LWF (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do in the future. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Binksternet changed the lead sentence to make it clearer on this particular subject.--LWF (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it certainly looks that way. I like Binksternet's change. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The previous use of the word "not" was certainly not helpful; the current revision I hope is at least not unhelpful. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corn

Dear Rest of the English Speaking World,

We'll give you Aeroplane if you give us Corn. This seems a fair compromise.

Best regards,

America 09:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Slay-worthy. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)