Talk:Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class)
AVIATION 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.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] Proposal for categories for Aircraft

Aircraft:

  • Technology
    • Propulsion
      • Piston-driven
      • Jet
    • (Pointer to Physics/Aerodynamics)
  • History
  • Planes
    • Producer1 (eg. Messerschmitt)
      • TypeA (eg. Me-109)
        • SubtypeAlpha (eg. Bf-109Getceteraadinfinitum)
        • SubtypeBeta
      • TypeB
    • Producer1
      • TypeA
      • TypeB

(Why are there question marks after the types and subtypes?)

I think that's a Wikipedia link id'er, that assumes anything with lower-case followed by upper case is a link. Given the intended change to names with spaces, this "feature" needs to be disabled. --Belltower

I'm surprised that lighter-than-airs are considered 'Aircraft'; they should be forked off early, nearly everything about them is different.

Embrace and Extend. --Yooden

(There are question marks becasue the words have two capital letters and therefore become subject to the autolinking rule which is a remnant from earlier wiki implementations).

Aircraft is a more general term than airplane.

In my mind what Yooden presents is really an airplane classification; lighter-than-air craft are aircraft and so deserve a place here. I would divide aircraft (by means of lift generation) into:

  • lighter than air
  • aerodynamic aircraft
    • helicopter
    • airplane
      • glider
      • powered airplane
  • rockets

and probably not say much more than that here, everything else should go in a place of its own.

(The Space Shuttle is interesting as it takes off using a rocket, but lands by gliding. Also, is a parachute an aircraft? What about a parascender?)--drj

IMO, an aircraft has to have a wing, and therefore the parascenter, using the parachute as a wing qualifies, where a balloon or standard parachute would not.--mike dill

[edit] Categorization

IMHO this is the place to do the categorizitaion(sp!); there's not much above aircraft. So we have:

Aircraft:

  • History
    • Early Years
    • WWI
    • WWII
    • After WWII
  • Lighter-than-Air
    • Technology
    • Dirigibles
      • Technology
      • Zeppelins
      • Non-Rigids
    • Balloons
  • Fixed-Wings Aircrafts
    • Technology
    • Propulsion
      • Piston-driven
      • Turbine
      • Jet
      • Rockets
    • (Pointer to Physics/Aerodynamics)
  • Rotary-Wings Aircrafts
    • Technology
      • (Pointer to Physics/Aerodynamics)
    • Propulsion
      • Turbine
  • Misc. Aircrafts (all Pointers?)
    • Ballistic Missiles
    • Parachute/Paraglider
    • Ekranoplanes
    • Hovercrafts
  • Individual Crafts
    • Producer1 (eg. Messerschmitt)
      • TypeA (eg. Me-109)
        • SubtypeAlpha (eg. Bf-109Getceteraadinfinitum)

[edit] Categorization

An aircraft is a craft of the air. Balloons and paragliders certainly qualify as aircraft, as do blimps and dirigibles, even though they don't have wings.

If it has fixed wings and an engine, it is an airplane. With fixed wings and no engine, it is a glider (most, but not all are also called sailplanes) or kite.

If it has a rotary wing, it is either a helicopter or an autogyro. If the rotor is also the source of thrust, it is a helicopter. If the rotor is unpowered and another form of thrust is provided (typically a propeller or gravity or towing mechanism), it is an autogyro or kite.

While we're at it, let's not forget the ultralight aircraft, and the amateur built (homebuilt) aircraft, which are certified in the experimental category.

Is there a need for categories talking about the different kinds of airspace? For IFR vs. VFR flying?

Is there a need to discuss different categories of pilot licenses?

How about types of charts used for navigation?

Perhaps something about aviation organizations, such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the Experimental Aircraft Association.

[edit] Suggestion

Suggestion: a glossary page, probably List of Aerospace terms, linked to from "Aircraft", "Aerospace engineering" and others. To contain short definitions of appropriate terms (e.g. aerostat, glider, VTOL, sesquiplane), linked to pages with longer articles as required. Rcingham


[edit] Aeroplane page

What the hell happened with the Aeroplane page!? An aeroplane is a specific type of aircraft, it should have its own page and it should be at aeroplane and not airplane. Even the Wright brothers used the word Aeroplane. Airplane is a stupidism. Mintguy

Looking into this it appears the the word airplane only started to used in the US after WWI. (Webster says it first appeared in 1907). Aeroplane (or flying machine) appears in all the documents relating to the early pioneers of flight. Airplane was coined by people who either mis-heard, or simply couldn't spell aeroplane. Mintguy
"Aeroplane" is still the accepted terminology for those of us who speak English, as opposed to American! Gene Poole
It doesn't matter how the spelling came about - right now in the US airplane is the correct spelling. It is not a stupidism! IMO there isn't enough difference between an aeorplane and an aircraft to warrent a separate article until this article gets too long. Then the aeroplane-specific information can be summarized here and the detail moved to its own article.
aeroplane
an aircraft that has a fixed wing and is powered by
        propellers or jets; "the flight was delayed due to
        trouble with the airplane" [syn: airplane, plane]

Aircraft \Air"craft`\, n. sing. & pl.
  Any device, as a balloon, a["e]roplane, etc., for floating
  in, or flying through, the air.

-- mav

A note from a user who can get pretty fanatical about correct English (see my edit history), and who, generally speaking, avoids Americanisims like the plague. There was an article at aeroplane which kept getting renamed to airplane and back again. "Airplane" is indeed a horrible ugly word which ought not be part of the language. Unfortunately, it is a part of the language, and American English has every bit as much right to be used here as any other dialect. The rule of thumb I use is to, wherever possible, avoid using either term in favour of the uncontroversial term "aircraft". Where that is not possible (because "aircraft" has a broader meaning than aeroplane/airplane and can sometimes be confusing), then it is best to use the correct international term "aeroplane", unless the aircraft in question is American, in which case I grind my teeth together, pray forgiveness, and write out the word "airplane". Sometimes it makes more sense to look at other contextual clues to correct usage: for example, in writing about the use of the (American) DC-3 in the New Zealand airline industry, one should say "aeroplane", or if describing the (British) B-57 Canberra bomber in US service, "airplane" is preffered. If in doubt, use the term that you think the aircrew would have used themselves. (Errr ... Would have used in polite company, I mean. No need for "clapped out old slug"!) There seems to be a rough, informal consensus here among the aircraft enthausiasts that this is a good way to work. Tannin 06:50 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for lighter-than-air types

I believe that the classification for the lighter-than-air types repeats the common mistake of treating the term 'dirigible' as limited to rigid airships. In fact, it is synonymous with 'airship' -- all types. (Actually, the word comes from the French term for steerable which is the functional distinction between airships and balloons.)

I propose to rework the classification of lighter-than-air to be

  • Lighter-than-Air
    • airships (aka dirigible)
      • rigid
        • Zeppelin (manufacturer of note)
      • non-rigids (aka blimp)
      • semi-rigid
      • hybrid
    • Balloons
      • gas balloon
      • hot air balloon

and to make other minor changes to the text to reflect this classification. These changes are already reflected in the glossary and in the related articles.

Blimpguy 01:15 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Aerodyne and Aerostat

The article doesn't explain the terms aerodyne and aerostat (sp?); I guess maybe the difference is analogous to the difference between dynamic and static stability in control theory? -- the dynamic version only achieves lift dynamically, but the latter version has lift statically, or intrinsically? Pagan 09:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aircraft article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aircraft}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fighters

As I have read it, fighters were first for shooting down reconicance aircraft, no bombers. David R. Ingham 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flight altitude records

Create a list for aircraft flight altitude records.

[edit] Page broken in Mozilla Firefox 1.5.05?

In Mozilla Firefox 1.5.05, some of the text of the "Types of aircraft->By design" section gets hidden by the figure "A size comparison of some of the largest aircraft in the world". It renders fine under IE6. Not sure if the issue is with the page source or with Firefox. - Amit Rao

Works fine for me under Firefox 1.5.05 (Windoze XP) - right text margin varies to fit correctly with the differently-sized figures. Not sure where the problem might be. Ecozeppelin 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fixed wing aircraft" vs "airplanes"

I've reverted the edit by OrangUtanUK changing all occurrences of "fixed wing aircraft" to "airplanes". With respect, there appears already to be a consensus against the use of either "airplane" or "aeroplane" where a reasonable alternative exists (see comment by Tannin above), and I note that Fixed wing aircraft already include swing-wing aircraft, so the grounds for the change are not really well-founded. Ecozeppelin 11:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may be a consensus in Wikipedia but it's still wrong in Fact. May I also point out that I didn't change all the occurrences of FWA to "airplanes". And finally, Swing-WIngs may be mentioned in the article, but that doesn't make them fixed wings: it makes the article wrongly titled. -- OrangUtanUK 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forward-swept wings

I would recomend an article about forward-swept wings and how it help/hiders the aircraft. Master_of_Tofu 7:37, October 23 2006 PST

See Forward-swept wing. Better late than never! Dolphin51 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] model airplanes, frisbees, birds and balls... aircraft, vehicles, objects?

Articles like airspeed, flight dynamics say that their subjects apply to aircraft or vehicles which are described as a means of transportation, whis is desribed as moving people or cargo. Airspeed and flight dynamics are concepts which apply to model airplanes, frisbees, birds and balls but these things do not fit in the chain of definitions as it now stands. I don't know what definitions should be changed, that of aircraft, craft, vehicle or transportation or maybe airspeed, and flight dynamics? Diletante 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aircraft classification

I'm not an aircraft officianado, but would like to contribute if only to get my answer which eludes me...how are aircraft engine performance rated?

This question brought me to the realization that I also can't find a standard aircraft classification listing!

In part The Cape Town Treaty helps...but not much. In part logic is useful also. Below is my list for General (Civil) Aviation classification. Why are not all aircraft engines rated in kN?!

General Aviation (GA) aircraft

Periods

  pre-1914  pioneers of aviation
  1914-1934 1st generation
  1935-1945 2nd generation
  1946-1966 3rd generation
  1967-1987 4th generation
  1988-2008 5th generation

Types of aircraft

Powered parachute

Manned free balloon

Powered inflated airship

Glider

Powered fixed-wing

       payload	take-off weight kgs	maximum operating altitude ft
               7 people or 2,750kgs
               8 people or 2752kgs

       power
               Turbine/Piston
                       at least 550 rated take-off horsepower
                       at least 551 rated take-off horsepower
               Jet
                       at least 1750 pounds of thrust
                       at least 1751 pounds thrust
       range
               local
               regional
               continental
               global
       purpose
               Engine performance testbed
               Regional commuter
               Utility
               Commercial commuter and cargo
               Industrial commuter
               Freight

Helicopter or gyrocopter

       payload
               5 people or 450kgs
               6 people or 451kgs
       power
               at least 550 rated take-off shaft horsepower
               at least 551 rated take-off shaft horsepower
       range
               local
               regional
               continental
               global
      purpose
               Engine performance
               Regional commuter
               Utility
               Commercial commuter and cargo
               Industrial commuter
               Freight

Where does a tiltrotor fit?!

I'm still working on the military classifications --Mrg3105 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerocraft performance

It seems to me this is inadequate in most entries. Firstly the entries are not standardized...a template/form needs to be added for all existing and future entries. Secondly consider the following:

The pilot is most naturally, far more concerned with what he can do with his own aircraft in the air, and his conviction that the Spitfire, for example is better than the Mustang is largely based on his own experiences. Moreover, his yardstick will be very different from a Mustang pilot, for example, who measures his aircrafts capabilities by its ability to carry out long range escort work, whereas a Spitfire pilot is more impressed by rate of climb and turning ability. To build a fighter to meet every requirement is out of the question so, at best, every fighter is a compromise with emphasis on one particular quality. Speed may be sacrificed for range, and manoeuvrability for war load, depending on Service requirements and the role for which the particular design is expected to be suited. Generalization, therefore, is going to be difficult, but by making a comparison on “clean” aircraft at their individual rated altitudes considerable food for thought will materialize.

Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft By Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R.

So it seems performance is far from addressed adequately in the Wikipedia entries! If performance is understood better, this will help to define aircraft type for the entries, and differentiate fighters from interceptors as one example. --Mrg3105 10:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and classification

I think there is a clearer way to organise this page. Abandon the Categories and classification heading, and just go straight to top-level headings such as:

  • Types of aircraft
    • Aerodynes
      • Aeroplanes (Fixed-wing aircraft)
      • Rotorcraft
      • etc
    • Aerostats
      • Balloons
      • etc
  • History
    • Early years
    • First World War
    • etc
  • Propulsion
    • Unpowered
    • Piston engined
    • etc
  • Use
    • Civil
    • Military
    • etc

Each entry would have a brief explanation and a link to its main page.

Any problems? -- Steelpillow 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did it. Still rough round the edges - I found a lot of duplication, which I have just chucked together so we can all see it and edit it down as time goes by. Hope y'all like it so far. -- Steelpillow 21:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to say, I have avoided using the word "type" as in type of aircraft. The reason is, that people use the word loosely for any of these classifications. Ask three Reginald S. Potters what type of aircraft they are looking at and they will all say something different, e.g. "It's a sporting glider," "It's a straight-wing monoplane", "It's a Nimbus 2000XP. They've just been bought up by a Russian oil company, you know". Not sure if I'm right to be so shy? -- Steelpillow 09:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future developments

This section is very poor quality. For example winglets are a well-established feature seen on many modern aircraft, while blended-body designs date back at least to the nineteen-fifties and include such notables as the Lockheed Blackbirds. IMHO this section should go completely, and be replaced by a "See Also" entry to the Future aircraft developments page. Any objections? -- Steelpillow 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I did that. Gave Future aircraft developments a bit of a makeover too. -- Steelpillow 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are rockets aircraft?

I just reverted someone's edits on the grounds that a typical rocket is not an aircraft because it has no lifting surface. A faint voice is asking, am I right? -- Steelpillow 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that an aircraft is something that can sustain non ballistic trajectories through the atmosphere, and that seems to be more or less the way the regulatory authorities are dealing with it too in the US; the AST branch of the FAA essentially regulate commercial rocket vehicles with a T/W > 1 up to 100km, but not beyond.WolfKeeper 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There are essentially three kinds of trajectory to consider: controlled and aided by air (aircraft), controlled but unaided by air (e.g. spacecraft) and ballistic (uncontrolled). What is convenient for the FAA to administer is not necessarily drawn along technical boundaries, and if the FAA want to regulate a small sector of rocketry in addition to aviation, that is fine by me. But I would say that those rockets are not aircraft unless they need air to fly. Do the FAA disagree with me?
Rockets have lifting surfaces within the engine, as with other VTOL jet powered vehicles such as the flying bedstead.WolfKeeper 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The thrust-bearing surfaces inside a rocket engine react against the exhaust gases. This is why rockets can fly in space, where there is no air to sustain an "aircraft" and we instead call them spacecraft. In a jet, the exhaust gases are mixed with air and the turbines react against this mixture - a jet requires air to work. So whereas the Apollo Lunar Module is rocket powered and is a spacecraft, the flying bedstead needs air to react against and so is an aircraft.
Pure rocket vehicles are not aerodynes but they are aircraft.WolfKeeper 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Some are spacecraft. I would suggest that rocketry is a separate discipline from both aviation and space, though it crosses into both areas. A rocket need not be either an aircraft or a spacecraft (though I guess the Space Shuttle is both!). Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Steelpillow 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aircraft
air·craft ... any machine supported for flight in the air by buoyancy or by the dynamic action of air on its surfaces, esp. powered airplanes, gliders, and helicopters.
I guess that rules out simple rockets. -- Steelpillow 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ornitopter

What about ornitopter? Why it is not covered?--79.120.2.26 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Ornithopter, it is covered here as the second item. - BillCJ (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lifting body

It seems evident that a lifting body is simply a very low-aspect ratio flying wing, not some "opposite" thing. The lifting body flies just because it is a wing with net positive glide ratio...something a wing is meant to do. Joefaust (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wing configuration - proposed new page and other changes

I have had an idea for a page explaining all the many kinds of fixed-wing configuration in more detail. Also, a similar explanation for rotorcraft although I do not think this is worth a whole page. I have started on the general idea here - what does anybody think? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wing configuration article has now been created. I have cut down the equivalent section of this article, to reduce duplication. Maybe I have cut too much? Also, the NASA image and the bullet list can clash on a big screen. If anybody can improve things, that would be good. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy efficiency

The cost of fuel for flying is now a major issue. What are the basic facts about energy efficiency, for modern heavier-than-air vs. lighter-than air flying, of goods and/or passengers? -69.87.200.75 (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues are discussed in the Airship article. The real issue is size: the current largest airship is longer than a 747 jumbo jet, but carries only a handful of passengers at well under 100 knots. Compared to the equivalent small passenger plane it is hugely unwieldly and expensive on the ground, cannot fly in bad weather, and is terribly slow. I have no idea of its working life, but I suspect that it is very short compared to a modern airplane - which does not give it very long to recover the energy cost of manufacture. IMHO airships may find a niche, and perhaps even create a few for themselves, but no way can they meet the needs of mainstream aviation: people have been trying since the 1970's (if not the 60's), but conventional airplanes keep getting harder to beat. HTH. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental effects

What is this rather minimalist section doing here? It says little and does not link to a more informative article. If it is worth keeping, I think it should go elsewhere, say on Aviation. I vote to just delete it. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Skin (aircraft) into Aircraft

I propose to merge Skin (aircraft) into here. Does not seem to be much more than a dictionary term, at the moment. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no other section of this article which talks about the construction of aircraft and their materials(wood, fabric, steel, aluminum, composite, and skin, bulkheads, longerons, stringers, et cetera). In my opinion, merging Skin (aircraft) in to this article would create an orphaned section. It's probably better to just delete the skin article, or move the skin article to something like "Aircraft construction" and start adding content as needed. Shreditor (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I removed the merge tags, and added it to the Category:Aircraft components and to the WikProject Aviation. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aircraft"
Personal tools