Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft

Mind the gap

shelved discussion

I don't mean to step on the toes of the current move request, but it seems to be going nowhere, and while people were still engaged, I thought I'd use the opportunity to raise a related issue and proposal. If people think it's untimely, I'd be happy to shelve it until the above debate is closed. Here it is:

It seems to me that the oft-recurring naming debate and its current compromise have led to a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. From what I (as a layman) can tell, the world of aviation can broadly be represented thusly:

• Aircraft
  • Fixed-wing aircraft
    • Powered fixed-wing aircraft (aka aero/airplane)
    • Glider
  • Rotary-wing aircraft
    • Helicopter
    • Autogyro
    • Gyrodyne

Under the current scheme, we have articles devoted to every major category of aircraft except perhaps the most important - powered fixed-wing aircraft (aka aero/airplanes). This seems a shame and a major shortcoming to me, and it presents a real incentive to change the status quo. But how? I propose:

1. keeping Fixed-wing aircraft as an umbrella article covering both gliders and the aero/airplane, after the fashion of Rotary-wing aircraft; and
2. creating a new article specifically about the aero/airplane.

Of course, this leads back to the root of the problem - what to title the article. We can't call it Aero/airplane (can we?), so I'd ask for a straw poll on the following four options:

A: Powered fixed-wing aircraft

B: Airplane

C: Aeroplane

D: Plane (aircraft)

All four have pros and cons, and I haven't decided which I'd prefer. I realize that this disturbs the current compromise. But I see a significant flaw in Wikipedia's presentation of aviation information (namely, that "fixed-wing aircraft" and "aero/airplane" are not synonymous), and so I thought I'd throw this out there and see what you all thought. There could still be a satisfactory solution to a recurring problem. Please feel free to oppose or support the concept, and if you support it, which of the four suggested titles you prefer. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to let the move conclude or be withdrawn by the nominator before making other suggestions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the gap problem exists (arguably created by the decision to name this article about airplanes the way it's currently named), but I suggest the best solution is to move Fixed-wing aircraft to Airplane as proposed above, and then, instead of redirecting Fixed-wing aircraft, to create the umbrella/general article. I believe this is a better solution since this article is more about airplanes specifically than fixed-wing in general. But it doesn't really matter which way we go, as while the bulk of the content here would probably go into the aeroplane article, the intro and history section are probably a better fit for the general unbrella article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The tree, as it actually exists, is:

• Aircraft
  • Fixed-wing aircraft
    • Unpowered aircraft
      • Gliders
      • Paragliders
      • Hang gliders
    • Propeller-driven aircraft
      • Propellors
    • Jet aircraft
      • Ramjets
      • Scramjets
    • Rocket-powered aircraft
  • Rotary-wing aircraft
    • Helicopter
    • Autogyro
    • Gyrodyne

This article cuts across this with subdivisions based on the source of power, which would be better fixed, but that's an editing detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite adding several types of aircraft, you've still missed the level of Powered fixed-wing aircraft, of which Propeller-driven aircraft, Jet aircraft, and Rocket-powered aircraft would be sublevels, no? For another visual depiction of the problem, take a look at Template:Seriesbox aircraft categories and note which item is not wikilinked. Dohn joe (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I;br sldo missed the level of Pwered aircraft that don't have hets; the one clas is as logically possible, and as practically useless, as the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: we currently have no article solely about the aero/airplane. This article is about the category of aircraft that includes both planes and gliders. Gliders have their own article (as do hang gliders, autogyros, helicopters, etc.) If we have an article devoted to the Gyrodyne shouldn't we have one devoted to planes? (This question is for everyone, by the way, not just PMAnderson.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, yes. The only reason this article is not that article is because of the contrived-compromise title it currently holds. In retrospect, I suppose one of the reasons it was supported by a consensus is that it represents a topic in and of itself - it's just a different (more general) topic than the topic that this article originally had and still tries to be in many respects. I really think the solution is to move this article to Airplane or Aeroplane, update the content to reflect the tighter scope, and split out a new Fixed-wing aircraft article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It would be redundant with this article. Rewriiting a subject with one small exception is as silly as writing Unsiamese cats. Almost everything said here would be repeated; the majority of it would be repeated again under glider, for it is still true: powered aircraft do glide - dead-stick. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I decided to take MilborneOne's suggestion and shelve this discussion for now, as it hasn't seemed to attract the interest of anyone besides Born2cycle and PMAnderson (sorry, folks.) I might try again some other time, after the current froth has subsided. Dohn joe (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; the only reason I've made more than one comment is to answer direct questions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a video on YouTube here; [1] showing American test pilot Tex Johnston rolling the Boeing 707 prototype and in his commentary for this he clearly uses the term aeroplane several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tandem Wings

Check out http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/arsenal_delanne-10.php (the wiki page lacks an image) - the second wing is at the rear - a tandem wing is different from a canard in that they are nearly the same size and the elevators are on the rear wing, whereas a canard, most of the lifting is done by a conventional wing and pitch control is up front. A tandem wing can also have a canard.NiD.29 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

I've been trying to find a nice montage that would show off the various kinds of fixed-wing aircraft - planes, gliders, hang gliders, kites, etc. In the meantime, I replaced the current image of an airliner with this one of a kite in flight. It's a beautiful image, and a good showcase of one kind of fixed-wing aircraft. If anyone can find (or create) a montage, that would be ideal. Otherwise, what do people think about a semi-regular rotation of planes, gliders, hang gliders, and kites for the infobox? Dohn joe (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor choice I'd say as this page is a stand in for airplane and aeroplane, and a kite is neither. Seems like pointless change for the sake of an argument, especially since there was no problems with the old photo. NiD.29 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But a kite is a fixed-wing aircraft - which is what this article is about. What's wrong with showing people that? There are plenty of good illustrative images of planes in the article text. What's wrong with rotating the lead image to show the different kinds of fixed-wing aircraft? That seems the most educational thing to do. Dohn joe (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Show a picture of a kite by all means - but not in the info box or otherwise illustrating the lead. A kite may well be technically a "Fixed wing aircraft" - but its hardly a typical example of what the article's about, is it? I realise that we're actually continuing the old aeroplane/airplane controversy, and I recognise that there is a good deal that might be said from your point of view - but doing it like this is NOT at all constructive. Good little Wiki editors DON'T take out their frustrations on the "users". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take out frustrations. I'm just trying to make sense of the article we have. It discusses unpowered aircraft throughout, does it not? I'm not naive, and understand that this is the "stand-in" article for planes. But if we accept the article as it's written, it includes kites and gliders. As a reader, I've been confused by the scope and layout of the article. Like I said, a montage would most neatly address that confusion. Failing that, a rotation of images would genuinely help, imo. Dohn joe (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Soundofmusicals' sentiments. This is not the first debate about the leading image in this article. As a result of this debate I rotated the leading image a couple of times. I am in favor of a periodical change of image to make use of some of the fabulous images at our disposal. However, I think the image in the infobox should be a conventional fixed-wing, powered aircraft or a glider. Some users (but not me) might object to a glider on the grounds that it isn't what most people think of when they think of a fixed-wing aircraft. Dolphin (t) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the very great majority of fixed wing aircraft are powered (things like kites and gliders are the exception) we don't need "powered" to be hammered all through the article - especially for remarks that apply to kites and gliders anyway (there have been biplane gliders, and the whole idea of a biplane stems from Hargreave's box kite - just to pick one example). Thanks for the little mention of kites though - and we probably need an equivalent bit for gliders. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of article scope/requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

(Non-admin closure)The result of the move request was:No consensus. Closed by Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft → Powered fixed-wing aircraft – This article perplexes me, and I really think it's about time we made it make sense. See below for rationale and several options. Dohn joe (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it's trying to do two things. First, as we all know, it's a stand-in for the nonexistent aero/airplane article, because we haven't been able to choose between those words. Second, it's actually about "fixed-wing aircraft" - which includes more than just aero/airplanes. This arrangement makes for a confusing, messy article, and misleads the readership. Other articles (not many, though) have compromise titles. I cannot think of another article on WP, though, where the compromise title is not actually a synonym of the subject of the article. Certainly not an article as prominent as this one.

As long as its title is "Fixed-wing aircraft", this article has to discuss things like gliders and kites - because they are certainly fixed-wing aircraft, and leaving them out would make the article incomplete. I've tried to introduce some bits and pieces about non-plane aircraft over the past couple of weeks for that very reason. And I've met resistance, because kites and gliders "is not what this article's really about". Which is what perplexes me. If we want an article that's really about planes, we should have one.

Which means finding a title that actually matches the subject of the article. I see four options:

1. Powered fixed-wing aircraft. While still not perfect, it eliminates kites and gliders, and maintains the spirit of the current compromise.

2a. Plane (aviation) or 2b. Plane (aircraft). Also somewhat of a compromise, but perhaps(?) too casual of a title.

3a. Aeroplane or 3b. Airplane. Just pick one, like 99% of the rest of WP has done.

4. Shut up, Dohn joe. While the current arrangement doesn't make sense, we're tired of debating it. The universe is full of inconsistencies - learn to accept it. Try again never.

So, there's my spiel. Fixed-wing aircraft would still remain, as a much smaller article pointing to the others. Feel free to discuss, !vote, or ignore. Dohn joe (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I support a rename (1/3a/3b - or even 3a/3b in alternate years) (with appropriate edits to the content to fit the new title), but I wouldn't leave an article at "Fixed-wing aircraft" as it probably wouldn't stay "much smaller" and it would add to the muddle of overlapping articles (a redirect to the relevant section of Aircraft would be better). Option 1 might lead to battles with the WP:COMMONNAME police. There are parts of this article (e.g. the "Design and construction" section) that apply equally to r/w aircraft so a review of all these overlapping articles might be called for. @DJ - have you looked at the previous discussions about this? DexDor (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at at least some of the prior discussions. They seemed to focus mainly on the terminology. I'm more interested in matching the scope of the article with the title. A few editors have mentioned that in the past, but it's always seemed a side point. I'm hoping that will be the main point here. Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current naming is suitable. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  So it's okay with you that "fixed-wing aircraft" is not a synonym for "aero/airplane"? Just trying to get a sense of how people feel here. Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Huh? It is a synonym. A fixed wing is a plane. In the early days of aviation, plane, aeroplane and airplane meant both the wing alone and the total assembly of wing, fuselage and other parts: the aircraft. The current title is perfectly apt. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support 3b. The current title, Fixed-wing aircraft, is an exception for no good reason, and creates article scope problems as noted in the nomination. We should go with either Aeroplane or Airplane, whichever was used first. The best evidence I can find is this, a version of Aeroplane from February 25, 2002... which is a redirect to Airplane, suggesting that the article was at Airplane at that time. Unfortunately Airplane itself goes back to only 2005 for some reason. The earliest version of Fixed-wing aircraft is dated March 30, 2002 [2]. So it's impossible to tell for sure, but the best evidence, the Aeroplane → Airplane redirect, suggests Airplane was first, so I support 3b. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure about that. I was having a look at nostalgia wiki and airplane was created on 19 September 2001 as redirect to aircraft [3] and then changed into an article about the movie on 5 November [4]. When areoplane was created on 25 February I think it's more likely that the airplane article it redirected to was either a redirect itself or about the movie, which is why it was changed to redirect to aircraft on 27 May [5]. Personally, I think neither airplane nor aeroplane have been the title of an article -- I think it started at aircraft and was then split into the more specific fixed-wing aircraft. Jenks24 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good findings; you've persuaded me about that. I've stricken my !vote above and created a new one below accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support 3a or 3b. Not sure about the argument from article name histories is the way to go, but I suspect Aeroplane predates Airplane in actual use. I would go with either though as I don't like the oddball compromise that has resulted in "fixed wing aircraft". My feeling is that we should stick with industry standard naming to avoid unnecessary confusion in regards to definitions. There is no reason that aeroplane cannot be redirected to airplane (or vice versa) - the first line of the header can remove any remaining confusion - after all - that is why that option exists.NiD.29 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support 3a or 3b. Don't really care either way, but an argument for aeroplane would be that the first version of fixed-wing aircraft [6] was written by an IP from England [7], so is in British English. Jenks24 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The current title "Fixed-wing aircraft" is one of the examples cited on MOS:COMMONALITY as a "universally used term". This was the compromise made several years ago instead of using either "aeroplane" (British English) or "airplane" (American English). The most recent move discussion on this issue resulted in no consensus to move Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  I also tend to disagree in choosing the British English "aeroplane", because under MOS:RETAIN, it only applies when no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue. However, discussion and previous consensus HAD resolved the issue by changing it to the neutral "fixed-wing aircraft". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Consensus changes and Dohn Joe makes a good argument about how the current title causes problems related to scope. Once once decides the title should be "airplane" or "aeroplane" - I suggest RETAIN is the most objective and fair way to decide which of the two to use. I suppose we could go with alphabetical too, but that seems even more arbitrary (in this case it's moot since both methods indicate the same result). --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support 3a/aeroplane. The current title, Fixed-wing aircraft, is an exception/compromise for no good reason, and creates article scope problems as noted in the nomination. It also creates a bad precedent - I've seen this title referenced many times as an example of how we sometimes go with a descriptive title even when the topic has a common name, particularly when it has more than one and we have trouble deciding which one to use, as if this is a typical thing we do, yet I don't know of any other examples. So, we should go with either Aeroplane or Airplane, and I really don't care which one, though since I'm from the U.S. my personal preference is the latter, but of course that's irrelevant here.

  The initial version of this file was created by 62.60.61.209 (talk · contribs), a UK IP, so that favors the British English spelling, aeroplane per WP:RETAIN, the only objective/non-JDLI way to decide this, I think. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong Oppose Current scope of the article is fine, I'm opposed to removing gliders etc. since they work the same way as aeroplanes, they're only pulled through the air very slightly differently. And even if the name changes, the article scope mustn't.Planetscared (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, having an article on powered fixed-wing aircraft (Aeroplane) makes sense, as we have an article on unpowered fixed-wing aircraft (Glider). I think the only reason we don't have one is because we've never been able to decide wither to call it Aeroplane or Airplane; a failure to decide on which of two titles to use is not a good reason to not have an article. But after moving this article to Aeroplane we could still create a new Fixed-wing aircraft that:

1. Is a summary article for sub-articles Aeroplane and Glider, and
2. Covers the details of the history and physics that are common to both Aeroplane and Glider.

--Born2cycle (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be horrible. We already have that article. THIS is that article.Planetscared (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support 3a/aeroplane. I've really nothing against "airplane" (it would certainly be better than the current title) - but "aeroplane" (or "aerodrome") seems to be what the American pioneers called it, at a time when "flying machine" or simply "machine" would have been more common in the British Isles. "Airplane" is is a subsequent "simplification" - and more or less exclusively American. I am prepared to accept that it is not considered illiterate in the U.S. - but spelling what after all is a Greek-derived word as if it was an English one does grate a little for this "aged person". A glider IS a kind of aeroplane really (strtching things a little), and so is a kite (although that is a lot more of a stretch) - don't think we really need change the article that much. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My dictionary defines airplane as A powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - "fixed-wing aircraft" (as opposed to rotary wing, or airship) does the job adequately and is a useful compromise avoiding arguments as to whether using airplane or aeroplane is correct in an article. I guess this falls under option 4 above. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - current nomenclature works fine. - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support 3a/3b. There seems to be a long-standing agreement that either of these titles would be perfectly acceptable but none of our naming criteria can pick out one of them as inherently better than the other. The current title is inherently worse than either, per the "common name" criterion. Picking an objectively worse title just as a compromise to avoid the choice between two equally good ones is a peculiar kind of solution that only Wikipedia's method of non-decision-making could produce. Since the choice between the two good ones is indeterminable, simply throw a wiki-dice to decide between the two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  The thing is, the scope of the article is more important than the name, even if we changed the name, we should probably keep the current scope, but if we change the name then the name wouldn't match the scope anymore.Planetscared (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that the scope of an article is more important than the name - and that they should match. And we can keep this article with its current title. But shouldn't we also have an article whose scope is "aero/airplane"? Dohn joe (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  No, I genuinely don't think we have enough material to split this article in that way. You would end up with one or both as very short articles that don't really say very much. The whole point of encyclopedias is to summarize material, and combining similar topics together and comparing and contrasting them in one article is the best way to do that, and that is why this article exists. That's the exact opposite of what you are trying to do, and you are trying to do this for what seem to me to be reasons related mainly to somewhat silly naming issues.Planetscared (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  This article only has 34k of readable prose, and I think it could be smaller without losing any content. Maybe if the article was 50k or more splitting would make sense, but right now, I just don't see the point.Planetscared (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  Part of the problem is that we already have a separate article on some types of fixed-wing aircraft, but we don't have a separate article on the most important type, the airplane. Powers ^T 01:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  Not an entirely separate article, but it's covered here, and nearly all of this article is about aeroplane/airplanes, and in my opinion the topics are probably not going to be separable because there's too much overlap with gliders.Planetscared (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yet glider aircraft is separable? Why would one be separable and the other not? Powers ^T 13:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  It's (also) because they're synonyms. Keeping synonyms together is highly desirable. Glider is only a near synonym.Planetscared (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  But the whole point of this discussion is that "fixed-wing aircraft" and "aero/airplane" are not synonyms, any more than "fixed-wing aircraft" and "glider" are. Planes and gliders (and kites, and hang gliders...) are subsets of fixed-wing aircraft. Dohn joe (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  You are actually incorrect, they are considered synonyms. There's a difference between a synonym and things that are identical.Planetscared (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  Evidence for your assertion, please. And even if it's true, why is synonymity so important? If they're not actually identical (regardless of whether the terms are synonyms), why aren't the two concepts separable? Powers ^T 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  As above: "The whole point of encyclopedias is to summarize material, and combining similar topics together and comparing and contrasting them in one article is the best way to do that, and that is why this article exists."Planetscared (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - "Fixed-wing aircraft" is a standard, commonly-used term to describe the subject here. "Airplane" is a very...for want a better term, "amateurish" phrase, and "Aeroplane" tosses ENGVAR into the mess. The current name is just fine and there is nothing at all wrong with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- Name accurately describes the content. Moriori (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  That's only half of the question. The other half is: don't we need a separate article just about planes, the way we do about gliders, kites, helicopters, etc. Dohn joe (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal says "that Fixed-wing aircraft be renamed and moved". The proposal doesn't specify "that Fixed-wing aircraft be renamed and moved and then a much smaller article named Fixed-wing aircraft be created with a lot less content." Moriori (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move request article is fine with current title. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment/question. Did I do this wrong? I was trying to have a comprehensive discussion that would address both the scope of the article(s) we want and the terminology we use. I thought I'd made that clear in the opening paragraph, but the last couple of comments (and a couple earlier ones) have only addressed half of the question. Maybe WP:RM was the wrong venue? Should we start again with an WP:RFC perhaps? Somewhere else? Or do people think there's still a chance here for a full discussion? Dohn joe (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • An RFC would be good; I just don't understand why people are ok with an article on gliders, an article on all fixed-wing aircraft, and no article on non-glider fixed-wing aircraft. Powers ^T 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Extraordinarily Strong Support for Change

Since there seems to be considerable confusion regarding the definition of "airplane", "aircraft" and "fixed wing aircraft" I am appending the definitions from the Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary by Bill Gunston (author of a very large number of books on aviation, and knighted for services to aviation journalism, so an unusually knowledgeable individual regarding aviation matters and an impeccably reliable reference), and from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). I am sure Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and other countries have similar legal definitions.

aeroplane  (US = airplane) BS.185 1940:  "A flying machine with plane(s) fixed in flight". Modern definition might be 'mechanically propelled aerodyne sustained by wings which, in any one flight regime, remain fixed'. Explicitly excludes gliders and rotorplanes, but could include MPAs, VTOLs and convertiplanes that behave as * (such) in translational flight.

aircraft  device designed to sustain itself in atmosphere above earth's surface, to which it may be attached by tether that offers no support. Two fundamental classes are aerodynes and aerostats. Aircraft need have no means of locomotion (balloons are borne along by gross motion of the atmosphere, while kites are tethered and lifted by motion of atmosphere past them), or any control system, nor means for aerodynamic or aerostatic lift (eg. jet VYOL aircraft need be no more than jet engine arranged to direct efflux downwards). Free-falling spacecraft qualifies as aircraft if, after re-entry, its shape endows it with sufficient L/D ratio to glide extended distance, irrespective of whether or not it can control its trajectory.

FAA Legal Definitions (from: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d30194c62a1a11c61055c20dc913e49d&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1&idno=14 as linked to from FAA site @ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/) No definition for fixed wing aircraft is given.

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

It is significant that neither source gives a definition for "Fixed wing aircraft", and that aeroplane is a subset of aircraft. Restricting our definition to only those aircraft with fixed wings fails to define airplane or aeroplane. People searching wikipedia are not searching for "fixed wing aircraft" but either airplane, aeroplane or aircraft and is unreasonable not to provide a real definition instead of a compromised mish-mash simply because Americans decided at some point to change the spelling of the word.

Personally I don't care whether the page is airplane or aeroplane but fixed wing aircraft is a disaster, and this discussion WILL recur indefinitely until the page is renamed. Furthermore, I suspect that if all of the names that have voiced an opinion in support for changing the name of this page in all of the discussions that have occured, that they would outnumber the voices of those maintaining the status quo by a large margin, and that many of those people have given up to the permenant loss of the project.

Since the main problem is which variant to use I propose the following solution:

• All references to American (air/aero)planes use airplane.
• All references to British (air/aero)planes use aeroplane.
• References to Canadian, Australian and New Zealand (air/aero)planes follow local practice.
• All references to other (air/aero)planes prior to 1940 use aeroplane.
• All references to other (air/aero)planes after 1940 use airplane.

There then needs to be only two articles - (air/aero)plane and aircraft.

The final question then arises - should airplane be redirected to aeroplane or vice versa.

The following arguments come to mind: (others will apply)

• Aeroplane is the older of the two terms, and has been in documented use in all English speaking countries.
• Google results - for airplane : About 146 million results vs. aeroplane : About 21.5 million results.

Surprisingly lopsided. (YMMV depending on your search engine bubble)

NiD.29 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Article reconfiguration

Well, I decided to be WP:BOLD and implement what I saw as the best interests of the encyclopedia and its readers, and what was largely supported by the germane comments to my poorly-framed question just above. In a nutshell, I moved much of the material on this page to Aeroplane, and rewrote this article as a summary article after the fashion of its cousin Rotary-wing aircraft.

This benefits the readers because now we actually have an article about planes, just as we do about helicopters, gliders, and kites. We also have a concise summary article about fixed-wing craft, the same way we do about rotary-wing craft.

As for the title, I picked "Aeroplane" because from what I can tell, that was the original title of the article oh so many years ago. I think we're all mature enough to handle an article at a title we're unfamiliar with. Please see Color, Aluminium, and Maize. I think even those who would prefer "Airplane" agree that "Aeroplane" is better - and more accurate - than "fixed-wing aircraft". Because that's really the issue - while all planes are fixed-wing aircraft, not all fixed-wing aircraft are planes. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate, non-misleading information. Now we do. I obviously expect this to be controversial. But I also firmly believe that this is the will of the community, and that we now have a better encyclopedia. Dohn joe (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this clearly controversial step, and you acknowledged the controversy, yet you pressed ahead. Sheesh. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of community feeling

The title has been discussed many times over the years. Much less often has the scope-title match been addressed. When it has, though, most editors have seen the problem. Here are a few examples from previous discussions:

June 2006: Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft/Archive_1#Talk:_Fixed-Wing_Aircraft

• "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)"

July 2011: Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft/Archive_2#Requested_move_2011

• "The concept of fixed-wing aircraft includes gliders (also known as sailplanes). The concept of airplane (and aeroplane) as defined by ICAO requires that the aircraft be power-driven, and therefore gliders and sailplanes cannot be airplanes or aeroplanes. Dolphin (t) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)"
• "My point is that fixed-wing aircraft and airplane (or aeroplane) are not synonymous. Dolphin (t) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)"

Jan 2012: Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft#Clarification_of_article_scope.2Frequested_move

• "Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

  Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

  It is significant that neither source gives a definition for "Fixed wing aircraft", and that aeroplane is a subset of aircraft. Restricting our definition to only those aircraft with fixed wings fails to define airplane or aeroplane....Personally I don't care whether the page is airplane or aeroplane but fixed wing aircraft is a disaster, and this discussion WILL recur indefinitely until the page is renamed... NiD.29 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)"

Comments such as those over the past six years were the basis of my thought process. Dohn joe (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was a thought process, where was the thought, "Let this one go, there is no consensus"? Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this split is consensus, and the material you've moved into aeroplane applies to ALL fixed wing aircraft. I am reverting this.GliderMaven (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

GliderMaven - I appreciate that your revert was in good faith, but please take another look at the reasons. You say that "the material you've moved into aeroplane applies to ALL fixed wing aircraft" - but that's not true - and that's the entire point of the split. Kites are fixed wing aircraft, and they do not have controls and instrumentation. Hang gliders are fixed wing aircraft, and they are not powered by jet engines. The reason for the split is All planes are fixed wing aircraft, but not all fixed wing aircraft are planes.

As for consensus, please look again at the comments. Four editors - Graeme Leggett, Binksternet, Planetscared, and TheBushranger - opposed on the incorrect assumption that fixed-wing aircraft and planes are synonyms. Three editors - Ahunt, Moriori, and MilborneOne - only responded to half of the question, which was that "Fixed-wing aircraft" was an appropriate name for the scope of the article as written, which was true, but did not address the question about a split. Six editors supported the move. Not one editor who actually addressed the full issue was opposed. The RM discussion (not an RFC) was closed by a non-admin without any sort of analysis. I thought long and hard about this one. Having been reverted twice, I won't make any further moves until we have more discussion. I apologize if I went about this wrong. Dohn joe (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No planes are fixed wing aircraft, I might point out. ;) "Fixed-wing aircraft" and "airplane" (to use the amateur-sounding vernacular) are synonymous in common useage. The question is what is most helpful to Wikipedia's average reader? And that is the status quo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But isn't one purpose of an encyclopedia to present accurate information when common usage is wrong? In common usage, Holland is synonymous with the Netherlands. But they're not the same, so we have separate articles about them, and explain the difference. Shouldn't we do the same here? Dohn joe (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that "fixed-wing aircraft" isn't in "common usage" at all. The average reader would quite rightly wonder why the technical term was being used and likely surmise that some some sort of larger category was the intended meaning. If we mean airplane, we should say airplane. Powers ^T 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to resurrect the aeroplane or airplane

Hi,

Just noticed the Fixed wing aircraft vs. Aeroplane/Airplane controversy, and the several proposals to move this article to one of these. I'm not going to get into the British vs. American English debate, but rather to propose that we split off some of the present content to one of them.

I'd say that the current focus is not quite right: the treatment of powered types is too dominant, with insufficient attention paid to unpowered types. For example most of the propulsion section would be better split off from the general discussion, while other areas focus on the "typical" fixed wing aircraft as a euphemism for the typical powered type - the controls and instruments described are certainly not typical of hang gliders or kites. Rather, quite a few of them do apply to the typical powered rotorcraft - as does much of the section on structure (rotorcraft have a fuselage while, flying wings, hang gliders and kites do not). And I can see other areas with an uncomfortable amount of focus on the typical powered type. The inclusion of all this biased material noticeably distorts the focus of the article.

Also it is clear, from the recurring efforts over recent years by a significant number of contributors to move this article, that the status quo is not satisfactory and something needs to be done.

So I'd suggest we resurrect one of the Aeroplane/Airplane articles as the more appropriate home for the relevant details. There have been at least two attempts over recent years to move this article - and plenty of folks have disagreed. Many of those "no" votes have been based on the need for an article with the present title, but that argument does not prohibit a second one with a different focus.

There would inevitably be some duplication of subject matter between articles, but that is fine as long as each article holds up as well constructed in its own right.

Further improvement can also be made by moving other bits to existing articles, for example much of the discussion on structure rightly belongs in the Airframe article, and in any case Aircraft structures should redirect there rather than here. Biut I don't think that kind of thing needs the heavy proposal/voting treatment, so here I am focusing on the principle of how best to present material focusing on the popular terms "Aeroplane" and "Airplane".

I am not "up" enough in wikiquette to know exactly how to make such a proposal, so I apologise if have done it the wrong way or in the wrong place. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that "the treatment of powered types is too dominant"; they affect peoples lives more (transport, warfare etc), they're more varied (IMO) and there's more to say about them. Anyway, it's not worth trying to match number of words on each topic to "importance". Lots of the detail in this article could be cut out - if the Types section was cut down (the detail should all be on the main pages) this article would be a more manageable size (e.g. a shorter ToC). However people object - they want "their" facts in this article - not just in the linked article. If we can't drastically reduce the size of this article (and ideally Aircraft as well) then we shouldn't create a new article at Aeroplane/Airplane; it'd end up duplicating a lot of the same stuff and adding to the maintenance workload without helping readers that much. Bear in mind also that we have articles about types of planes - Jet aircraft, Airliner, Fighter aircraft etc. DexDor (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DexDor that a standalone Aero/airplane article should ideally be accompanied with a drastically reduced Fixed-wing aircraft article. For an example of what they might look like, see this draft of an Aero/airplane article, and this draft of a reduced Fixed-wing aircraft article, patterned after the current Rotary-wing aircraft article. I tried introducing them, but was reverted. I'd love it if folks would look at them and see if I was on the right track.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohn joe (talk • contribs)

I was one of the reverters. I do not think that the article should "resurrect" the airplane or the aeroplane. I think it all works just fine as it is. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, over the last month this article has been reorganised and tidied up to create a more logical structure. As a result the material dedicated to aeroplanes now takes up about 80% of it, with the core subject matter split between top and bottom of an excessively long article. I think this amply illustrates the need to split off an aeroplane article (as opposed to the move already voted down twice). So I should now like to push this proposal forward.

I vote for a split. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the article still needs more of an overhaul. Wing configuration, instruments and flight controls are still very large sections which seem to be trying to duplicate existing articles on those subjects. (More overview, less detail is required). I think trying to spin off aeroplane is premature. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)