Talk:Planform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
WikiProject Physics / Fluid Dynamics  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.
 

Gallery[edit]

Does anyone else think the oblique views of the airliners added to the article do little to improve understanding of the main subject (i.e. wing planform) and are therefore cruft? Dhaluza 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I added those pics, not "randomly" as you said in your Edit Comment but after thought. I agree the wings are shown obliquely but I'm sure our readers are capable of recognising that. It's difficult to see how planform views "do little to improve understanding of the main subject". Until I added the pics there were NO airliner planforms in the article, now there is. If the pics were crowding the article then a gallery is the proper place for them. I (obviously) vote that they stay - Adrian Pingstone 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have a near-planform view (of a bmi A319) I have removed the two obliques - Adrian Pingstone 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article subject[edit]

What is the ACTUAL subject here? Wing Planforms or Planforms in general? If it is intended to be about wings (as all the details suggest) the name should be changed to Planform (wing) or Wing Planform or something like that. If not, all the detail about high speed and low speed planform is off-topic. Wing planform could be described in just a few words and one or two picture examples in the greater general context of planforms.

-- Gummer85 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it be about both? Without the aviation aspect, the article would be two sentences long. Do you intend to expand it if the "wing" info is split off? If not, I see no problem keeping it all in place, though it could be reorganized. - BillCJ (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • On second look, the article Plan view appears to cover the same general information. Neither article is sourced at the moment. While the word may well have other uses, "planform" is a standard term in aviation without any disambiguation, and does covers more than just the wings. It would probably be best to remove the general term's paragraph, and link to the plan view article, to avoid subject confusion. The majority of the links to Planform are aviation-related anyway; the others can be looked at, and changed to a more appropriate page such as Plan view or Floor plan. - BillCJ (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is mostly devoted to planform of aircraft, and I think the aircraft application warrants a dedicated article. I would not like to see it diluted with information about house plans or maps. For this reason I suggest changing the name of the article to Planform (aircraft). This would be consistent with Chord (aircraft). It would be inconsistent with Camber (aerodynamics) and Aspect ratio (aerodynamics) so I could be persuaded that Planform (aerodynamics) would be better. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)