Talk:Sports plane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Requested move

I believe Sport aircraft is the more generic and in more widespread use, e.g. "Sports plane" gets ~11,000 hits, "Sport Aircraft" gets >270,000 on Google. This is separate from Light Sport Aircraft which is a special case. --anon

Did you search for "sports aircraft" in quotes? Paul Beardsell 12:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but searching "Sport aircraft" OR "Sports aircraft" brings the total to 288,000.Dhaluza 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey? Search for '"sports aircraft"': 14000 hits. '"sports plane"': 11000 hits. Paul Beardsell 12:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem we have is that a "sports plane" is an informal categorisation of aircraft. Until the (recent) introduction of the FAA's Light-sport aircraft category the term "sport aircraft" would have been far less popular than it is now. We now run the risk of people thinking we mean LSA when we say "sports aircraft" which is why "sports plane" is better (IMO). There are plenty of sports planes (e.g. all the common aerobatic aircraft) which will never fit into the LSA rules. Paul Beardsell 13:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Even "sport aircraft" -"light sport aircraft" produces over 50,000 hits, so "sport aircraft" is still probably a more popular term. It is also more generic, because sports plane refers to an airplane, but sport aircraft covers gliders, etc. I don't see the confusion--Light Sport Aircraft is just a sub-category of sport aircraft. If anything, is is less confusing.Dhaluza 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But the term has been usurped by the FAA. If you wish to maintain the distinction between the pre-existing concept of an airplane-for-fun as opposed to airplane-for-transport then "sport plane" is less subject to confusion. Now, when anyone says "sport aircraft" there is always the fairly strong possibility they mean aircraft conforming to LSA rules, and not an Extra 300 or a Super Decathlon. It's as if suddenly there was a different driving license for "sports automobile" - a new legal category for cars under 600kg which are not complex and not fast. If all references to "sports car" are then changed to "sports automobile" - a more formal and more "correct" term right from the start (just like "aircraft" is more formally correct than "plane") - then what do we call the Ferrari, the Maserati etc to avoid confusion? Please, not "sports automobiles"! Similarly, lets not call the Cap 10, the Pitts Special "sports aircraft" but stick to the already previously popular term "sport plane". Paul Beardsell 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This renaming is driven by the need to replace the informal "plane" with the more formal "aircraft". This term is an informal one and a useful one. The rename would create some confusion and so it should not be done. Paul Beardsell 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

This article cites no sources, and a search for RS that supports this term and its definition did not turn up any suitable sources. I have tagged it as {{OR}} and will nominate it for AfD if none are added. Dhaluza 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)