Talk:Airplane: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:06, 17 April 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Airplane article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Vital article

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Aviation C‑class

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Transport C‑class Top‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Purity.case.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane

Why is the title airplane and not aeroplane? Aeroplane is the original spelling, airplane is just a later Americanisation.

I mean really, reading through wikipedia articles you'd think that bloody Americans invented the English language, it's pathetic.

Commonwealth English first then American spelling that's how it should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraitorBagel (talk • contribs) 10:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually airplane was coined by Brits too.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very civilized interjection. I was about to write how Euro-centric this article is leaning, by barely mentioning the Wright Brothers without any pics of the Wright Flyer. However, to be clear, the American-British spelling of articles has clearly been stated in the Wiki rules.63.152.251.85 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lol. First off, English people sure didn't invent the language, either. Only constructed languages have inventors. Second off, while Americans didn't invent the language, I can think of one very relevant large flying machine that they did invent. Red Slash 18:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just this article, it's the entirety of wikipedia. It always puts 'word' or 'word (British English), like American English is where English came from. I wonder if the German Wikipedia has this problem with Austrian German, or Portuguese has this problem with Brazilian Portuguese.

Really? Wikipedia has loads of articles using British spelling - see kilometer for one example out of literally hundreds Red Slash 21:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the British spelling, it's the official spelling, designated by the French, they created the metric system, it's just that Americans spell it differently to the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraitorBagel (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss - all Americans - called their machines aeroplanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.249 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Aeroplane" is the term used by ICAO (ref. Annex 1). Per WP:COMMONALITY, it should be used in preference to any national variant. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im also disgusted that everything on wikipedia is being americanised. It comes from french originally from ancient greek 'aeroplanos' and its known to most of the world as aeroplane!!: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia is not "being" Americanized - it was created by Americans, thus was already American. Other language variants of English are allowed on Wikipedia by the grace of Jimbo Wales. I dare say if Wikipedia had been invented in Britain, British English would be mandatory, with no variation allowed whatsoever. They'd probably even enforce it on talk pages! So, rather than decrying "Americanisation" on Wikipedia, you should be thankful any other English variants are allowed at all. Allowed by Americans! - BilCat (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for people who value information and learning. Readers whose first response is to recoil at the presence of unfamiliar spelling probably don’t value information and learning. Variations in spelling are evident in paper books too. Dolphin (t) 22:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idc that this is 8 years old but you are real fucked up by saying “By the good graces Commonwealth English is allowed to Exist on Wikipedia” Holy fuck are you hearing yourself? Get a life “you should be thankful”

Cth. English is spoken and written by up to 2 Billion people. Cth. English is standard English. 124.183.129.82 (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why not plane or aircraft both terms are used internationally NotOrrio (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because "plane" is too informal, and not all aircraft are airplanes/aeroplanes. BilCat (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Plane" is actually WP:COLLOQUIALISM. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change usage of aeroplane to uk, commonwealth and ireland

46.7.220.20 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.251.49.137 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) the wright brothers has made it . it was invention first in mumbai and then by wright brothers 103.251.49.137 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

404 not found citation

The sources for the claim that the Wright brothers invented and flew the first airplane link to a non-existent website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloalmeidaff9 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airplane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Airplane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

source:https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf 218.103.152.77 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airplane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814194929/https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/7095890/the-naca-nasa-and-the-supersonic-hypersonic-frontier to https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/7095890/the-naca-nasa-and-the-supersonic-hypersonic-frontier

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 13:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane → Aeroplane – The ICAO term is "Aeroplane" (ref. ICAO Annex 1), which should be used in preference to a national variant, per WP:COMMONALITY. Previously discussed at Talk:Airplane#Aeroplane. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Article has been stable at this title for several years, and the WP:COMMONALITY claim isn't sufficient to override this. - BilCat (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC As far as I'm aware nobody (myself included) has considered the implication of ICAO definitions before. It just came to my attention in another discusssion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant per MOS:RETAIN. - BilCat (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English." overrides. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Aeroplane" is not common in American and Canadian English. - BilCat (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA uses "airplane", ICAO uses "aeroplane". The latter is an international body. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, per common and most familiar name, but will watch this interesting discussion. Here is the n-gram result from 1900 to 2008 which wavers but seems to have stabilized in favor of 'Airplane' (n-grams went extinct in 2009, although I have a fossil of one that I keep in a drawer). Has there ever been an RM, before this one? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely obvious case where the WP:COMMONNAME overrides the official name._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - COMMONNAME is not a valid argument for keeping "airplane", it is not the common and most familiar name, the word is used in just two countries in the world. YSSYguy (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is another humor/humour case and requests like these are disruptive, Go and read WP:ENGVAR, Also oppose as per COMMONNAME, The article has been stable at this name since creation so there's no need to move it now. –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this were simply a choice of national varieties of English, I would not have made the proposal. I have already quoted from ENGVAR - please read the document. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – WP:COMMONNAME always overrides an official name. The common spelling is the North American spelling. No compelling evidence at this time to support a title change. CookieMonster755 ✉ 02:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose! Surely you can't be serious... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he's serious. And don't call him Shirley. :) - - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The WP:COMMONNAME arguments are bollocks - we don't all live in the US and the international consensus should take priority over its local dialect (cue massive partisan backlash). MOS:RETAIN is a guideline not a policy and such standard vs. local usage goes beyond it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada also uses the spelling airplane and not aeroplane. CookieMonster755 ✉ 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised there hadn't been any past discussion on this matter. So I looked at article history. This article was (effectively) created in March 2013 by conversion of a redirect to fixed-wing aircraft with content from that article. an attempt in February 2012 to create an article at aeroplane(using content from fixed-wing aircraft?) was reverted citing "The RfC for this edit just closed with no consensus for it" though I have yet to find the RFC in question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: See Edit warring at fixed-wing aircraft and aeroplane and Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft/Archive 2#Clarification of article scope or requested move. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, airplane is the common name. My country is an interesting example. The official term in Canada is "aeroplane" as used in all the regs and official docs, but no one uses or writes it that way in any common usage, instead "airplane" is the only term used. In this country if you wrote an article for an aviation publication and used "aeroplane" you would be looked at like a 19th century relic. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN, which is far more applicable than WP:COMMONNAME Red Slash 17:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proposal to change the variety of English used in the article. RETAIN does not apply. Rather, this is a proposal to use the internationally recognised term in preference to a local variant. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By definition changing to the name that is used by the other variety of English will require changing the variety of English used in the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. And not just ENGVAR - I haven't seen "aeroplane" used in British-published books, magazines, etc., only "airplane". "Aeroplane" may be de jure official, but it is de facto archaic. "Airplane" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME, and changing it just to be 'officially correct' will do absolutey nothing to improve the encyclopedia; it will only give people more things to laugh at Wikipedia about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: This isn't so. A look at last months British newspapers on GNews are mainly saying "plane", sometimes "aeroplane", but "airplane" only occurs in phrases like "airplane mode". Same with Indian newspapers. http://www.abc.net.au is 1/3 British and 2/3 American usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what the Beeb did and lo "Bristol Freighter aeroplane to be restored in city" one example, though also found report on storm that referred to "light airplane". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sub-thread has prompted me to look around a bit. Both the Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries now accept "airplane" as an alternative UK spelling, while the BBC seems to mostly use "aeroplane" but does sometimes use "airplane". A quick scan of my books and magazines published in the last ten years reveals several uses of "aeroplane" but none of "airplane". This all suggests that, while the tide may be beginning to turn, it has not turned yet. Whatever advocates of either position may think, the situation is certainly not clear-cut. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is not clear cut. My unscientific comparison showed a slight edge for aeroplane when a boolean exclusion of "Wikipedia" (as suggested in wp:commonname#Use_commonly_recognizable_names "Other topics") is applied to a google search. DonFB (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC) ADD: Hmm, just did the comparison again and this time airplane was far ahead, so my 1st effort was apparently faulty, and I'll therefore Oppose, based on Commonname. DonFB (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the initial request is based on the argument from authority, namely that "The ICAO term... should be used in preference to a national variant." Since when does some outside organization trump Wikipedia guidelines and policies, even if it is a respected international aviation organization? If we're going that route, then I oppose per IATA's preference for airplane over aeroplane by 1160 to 72. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per this --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more up-to-date search (2008 vs. 2000) shows essentially the same result with "airplane" outpacing "aeroplane" approximately 4 to 1. User:HopsonRoad 16:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are we being shown out of date historical data from Ngrams? The way to check this is GNews which is current. But then GNews shows all countries using "plane" not airplane/aeroplane.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, however "plane" would fail the Precision criterion in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, since there are many other senses of the word. User:HopsonRoad 16:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plane is just a colloquial abbreviation for "airplane". - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looking at the demographics of the countries where the two terms are used, the US and Canada comprise approximately 360M people and the British Isles, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand comprise approximately 107M people—compared to those who use "airplane" as their preferred spelling, fewer than one third use "aeroplane" as their preferred spelling. Stated another way, about 23% of English speakers use "aeroplane". This by itself doesn't suggest that North American usage should prevail in all articles. I further suggest that the country that established the technology described should get a nod. Accordingly, I suggest that nautical terms, e.g. "gibe" versus "gybe", should use British English, given Britain's sea-faring heritage. Here, North America should get the nod. User:HopsonRoad 14:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In referring to English language#Geographical distribution, the countries with the most native English speakers are, in descending order, the United States (at least 231 million), the United Kingdom (60 million),} Canada (19 million), Australia (at least 17 million), South Africa (4.8 million), Ireland (4.2 million), and New Zealand (3.7 million). Therefore, North America has 74% of all the native English speakers in what is called the "Inner Circle of English". User:HopsonRoad 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To these must be added countries whose Wikipedias are less comprehensive than ours and many of whose inhabitants speak English, so they come here often both as visitors and editors. These populations include about half of Europe and over 140,000 in the Indian sub-continent (10%+ of 1.2 billion in India, plus 50% of 0.2 billion in Pakistan, plus others). Most of these nations are more closely aligned to British English than to American. You can prove anything with statistics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Do we really need an entire article about how aircraft engines are numbered?

This seems like something more appropriately included as part of the article on airplanes, not something to make a stand-alone article out of. It's not really "notable", and consists of nothing but a list of different layouts by number of engines, and how they are numbered, even though anyone with basic math skills ought to be able to figure it out from the statement "they are numbered starting from the left to the right, from 1 and up". Do we really need a list to tell that that means that No. 1 is the left and No.3 is the inner right? The name is also not great; what does "Aircraft engine position number" actually mean? Are they in fact "position numbers"? I think someone has been over-enthusiastic is all. I appreciate the effort (and I can kind of see the motivation; I used to have a hell of a time remembering whether "1" was on the left or the right. This article doesn't really do any harm, I'm just not sure it falls under the category of "article material", and there is little chance of most people ever finding it or using it. Also little chance of it ever being expanded into anything more interesting, unless someone can come up with interesting international variations and/or historical details to fill it out more. Here's one; a twin-tandem engine aircraft, like one of the old early 1930s British or French bomber designs, with two nacelles, each containing a tractor and a pusher prop: what is the numbering sequence? 1 and 2 for front and rear on the port, 3 and 4 for front and rear on the starboard? How were the engines of the Dornier Do X numbered? These sort of details might turn it into something resembling a legit article, but they are lacking now. What we have here is a couple sentences worth of info from the "Airplane" page bulked out to make it into an "article". AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subject of this discussion it may better belong at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Ader and the "avion"

This article is semi-protected, and being french, I can't edit it, so I post here.

I find it strange that there is no mention of Clement Ader first flights. Actually he was the first to fly, before Wright brothers, in 1890 then 1897 in front of a military committee for 300 meters, protected by military secret, and did have patent anteriority that led to multiple trials.

http://www.gouvernement.fr/partage/9572-le-francais-clement-ader-parvient-a-faire-decoller-eole-le-premier-avion

http://www.aerosteles.net/steleen-versailles-ader300m

For the record, he coined the word "avion" which means airplane in french, and aviation is also a word borrowed from french. --HugoMe (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HugoMe, Yes, that needs to be fixed to add Adler. There's no prohibition on editing the article if you are French, so feel free to edit it if you wish. If you feel unsure about your level of English, you can add your proposed text here on the Talk page instead, and we can adjust it for proper English before moving it to the article. And finally, you may post your proposed addition here in French if that is easier for you, and I'll translate it. Just make sure to use citations to reliable sources, and {{ping}} me to get my attention, when you are done.

P.S. By the way, other French aviation words include aerodrome, aileron, fuselage, hangar, pilot, pitot tube, and parachute. Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph, HugoMe and Mathglot. See what you think. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution was a condensation of material found at Clément Ader#Development of aircraft. User:HopsonRoad 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HopsonRoad: That looks fine. When you copy or translate from one Wikipedia article to another, there is a requirement to provide attribution to the source article. I've gone ahead and done this at this article on your behalf (see the History); please see your Talk page for details. (Apologies for late response here; thought I had sent this before I responded at your TP.) Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Semi-protection is a wikipedia feature that prevents you from modifying an article if you're unregistered. I don't know why, but I appear unregistered on en.wikipedia.org, even if I am registered through fr.wikipedia.org so I can't access the edition links myself.

Regarding Adler, I think it would be fair to mention there is a debate to what he achieved really, since officially in France (as indicated in the official government link above mentioned) he is considered in his last flight having flown 300 meters, and a stele celebrates it. History out of France has forgotten Adler, since he gave up after his third attent, and his influence on aviation seems to have been weak, bat design being a dead-end (though he did pioneer a very light steam engine). On top of that he had a very bad temper and was not very mundane. He did though invent a lot of other things and could have succeeded. (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clément_Ader)

At least he's present in the page now. --HugoMe (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the various other claims for first 'powered flight' condition usually left out of the equation is 'controllable' as in controllable powered flight, which the Wright Brothers and Santos Dumont indisputably achieved, the others, alas, did not.

A powered flying machine that lacks controllability is effectively useless, as well as dangerous, hence for those claimants the verdict must unfortunately be "Close, but no cigar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first powered airplane flight

It seems that Alberto Santos-Dumont was not the first who rised an airplane in the air with his own motor, on 23 October 1906. Before him, on march 18, 1906, Traian Vuia did this with his airplane and traveled through the air 12 meters at 1 meter hight. And even did a second flight in August 1906, longer and higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cota1000arieseni (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have references for this?--VViking_TalkEdits 16:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire article for the debates about this Early flying machines so we don't have to repeat these debates on every article related to aviation. Rmhermen (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph summary Environmental impact of aviation

There should be a paragraph with a summary of Environmental impact of aviation.--PJ Geest (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

A321 final assembly (9351765668).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the title of the page to Airplanes/Aeroplane IISpace (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your request here, but Wikipedia article titles don't incorporate alternative spellings, instead we use WP:COMMONNAME. For more information on naming see Wikipedia:Article titles. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Main article: Altimeter 3-Pointer Altimeter.svg The altimeter shows the aircraft's altitude above sea-level by measuring the difference between the pressure in a stack of aneroid capsules inside the altimeter and the atmospheric pressure obtained through the static system. The most common unit for altimeter calibration worldwide is hectopascals (hPa), except for North America and Japan where inches of mercury (inHg) are used.[2] The altimeter is adjustable for local barometric pressure which must be set correctly to obtain accurate altitude readings, usually in either feet or meters. As the aircraft ascends, the capsules expand and the static pressure drops, causing the altimeter to indicate a higher altitude. The opposite effect occurs when descending. With the advancement in aviation and increased altitude ceiling, the altimeter dial had to be altered for use both at higher and lower altitudes. Hence when the needles were indicating lower altitudes i.e. the first 360-degree operation of the pointers was delineated by the appearance of a small window with oblique lines warning the pilot that he or she is nearer to the ground. This modification was introduced in the early sixties after the recurrence of air accidents caused by the confusion in the pilot's mind. At higher altitudes, the window will disappear.[1]:3-3

Airspeed indicator Main article: Airspeed indicator Airspeed indicator.svg The airspeed indicator shows the aircraft's speed relative to the surrounding air. Knots is the currently most used unit, but kilometers per hour is sometimes used instead. The airspeed indicator works by measuring the ram-air pressure in the aircraft's Pitot tube relative to the ambient static pressure. The indicated airspeed (IAS) must be corrected for nonstandard pressure and temperature in order to obtain the true airspeed (TAS). The instrument is color coded to indicate important airspeeds such as the stall speed, never-exceed airspeed, or safe flap operation speeds.[1]:3-7 to 3-8

Vertical speed indicator Main article: Vertical speed indicator Vertical speed indicator.PNG The VSI (also sometimes called a variometer, or rate of climb indicator) senses changing air pressure, and displays that information to the pilot as a rate of climb or descent in feet per minute, meters per second or knots.[1]:3-8 to 3-9

Bravergragoon77 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Altimeter[reply]

I'm not sure what you are after, Bravergragoon77. That much detail is too much for the overview airplane article. It is appropriate for the Altimeter and Airspeed indicator articles, where you can edit directly or discuss in Talk:Altimeter and Talk:Airspeed indicator. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Æroplane" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Æroplane. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Æroplane until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Non-Catapult Flight

The article only mentions Santos-Dumont as having had the first flight without a catapult, but the archived cited source, which appears to be a blog post, is contradicted by reputable sources. These sources indicate that a catapult was only added to the Wright flyer in 1904; the article should be changed to reflect this. PaKYr (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article

I'm sure this has been done to death already, but I'm wondering why the article is still called 'Airplane'. Of course it's entirely legitimate usage, and I have no problem with it, nor the fact that the article is written in American English. However, the term 'Aircraft' would surely satisfy all preferences. 'Aircraft' is used in all forms of English, and its use here would not be controversial, as far as I can see. It would stop the no doubt endless debate about the matter. Is there some reason why 'Aircraft' would not be a suitable name for the article? The only thing I can think of is that the term can be singular or plural, but I don't rate that as a big issue. Arcturus (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airplanes are a subset of aircraft. Airplanes are powered, fixed wing aircraft, whereas aircraft includes gliders, hang gliders, balloons, airships, paragliders, gyrocopters, helicopters, tiltrotors and so on. We already have an article about aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But are airplanes actually defined as being powered? If not, the article could be 'Fixed wing aircraft'. Maybe a bit wordy, but it might fit the bill. Arcturus (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, airplanes are powered, fixed wing aircraft. Just "fixed wing aircraft" includes other categories of aircraft, like gliders and hang gliders. We already have an article on fixed-wing aircraft, too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the difference. Thanks for the clarification. Looking at external sources, some do define an airplane as 'powered', but others don't, and include gliders. I suppose it's just one of those many issues that will remain controversial due to language variants. Cheers, Arcturus (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no disagreement or controversy among informed sources on this issue. For instance all regulatory agencies, like Transport Canada defines aeroplane means a power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft that derives its lift in flight from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces that remain fixed during flight and the US Federal Aviation Administration defines 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. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting edit because this page is misinforming people about the invention of the airplane. In 1903 the Wright brothers catapulted a flying vessel into the air. It did not take flight by itself. Therefore, the first real airplane was invented by Alberto Santos Dumont in 1906 in France, Paris, where, with his legs walking the ground, he helped his plane, named 14-bis, take flight. This article is historically and technically wrong, proposing a wrong vision on one the most important inventions of the XXth century. 2804:14C:5BAA:866B:497C:E316:798F:639F (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't change text reflecting the consensus of historians in reliable third party sources, based upon your unsourced desire to see this changed. If you want to see this changed you will have to back-up your claim with a new majority of WP:RS that say that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"🛩️" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🛩️. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#🛩️ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first inventor of airplane was Indian scientist Shivkar bapuji talpade who had invented airplane 8 years before Wright brothers in bombay 2409:4042:D0C:4A63:0:0:730A:C902 (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ASUKITE 04:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane was not invented by wright brothers

Already debunked at Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, closed by Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aeroplane was first made in 1895 eight years before wright brothers it was created in india in mumbai not in America ,by Shivkar Bapuji Talpade. Adityagurjar324 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bell X-1 in the jet section

The Bell X-1 was rocket powered and shouldn't be in the section on jets. Am I missing something? Don't have time to confirm my impressions right now. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @BilCat:. That looks good. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turbofan section

Avi8tor, you reverted my substantive revisions of the Turbofan section with the edit comment, "It is revolutions per minute therefore singular", which did not reveal the extent of your reversion.

Here are what I regard as the defects of the version that you reverted to:

It is completely unreferenced, but you removed the tag highlighting that problem.
It is organized in a manner the mashes supersonic aircraft together with subsonic transport aircraft.
It uses non-encyclopedic language, like, "Most modern jet planes", "this is called", "Jet aircraft possess high cruising speeds".
It suggests that the Concorde service was discontinued because of the sonic boom and high fuel consumption, when it was a more general issue of expenses versus revenues.
It talks about the use of flaps as if they were unique to jet aircraft and speaks of "high speeds" on takeoff and landing. It's better to just say the speeds.

I will await your more detailed explanation about your decision to revert, before reverting back to the previous version. Let's avoid a WP:3RR situation and just come to an agreement about how to write this section, so that it best represents the subject and is clear to our readership.

I concur that "rpm" should be singular. Thanks for that observation!

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HopsonRoad I'm at a loss for what's changed as well, I didn't revert anything. I changed the rpms to rpm (singular as it's per minute) and changed some of the language in this paragraph:

Jet aircraft possess high cruising speeds (700–900 km/h or 430–560 mph) and high speeds for takeoff and landing (150–250 km/h or 93–155 mph). Due to the speed needed for takeoff and landing, jet aircraft use flaps and leading edge devices to control the lift and speed. Many jet aircraft also use thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft upon landing. Are there whole paragraphs deleted? That certainly was not the intention. But reading the article rather than the history it appears to be all there. Avi8tor (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things in many paragraphs that are still factually incorrect, not all jet aircraft possess (or have) high cruise speeds and not all jet aircraft need high speeds for takeoff and landing when they have excellent high lift devices to attain lower takeoff and landing speeds, high high lift devices do not control speed, they generate more lift at a given speed, if the high lift devices fail to deploy the approach speed is higher to compensate. Swept wing aircraft are made for high speed flight, straight wing aircraft are made for short takeoff and landing distances which result in a lower maximum speed. Avi8tor (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in, Avi8tor. It appears that your revert was accidentally more encompassing than you intended. I'm going to restore my edits, which are consistent with your well-aimed points, above, and let's work from there! The text currently has the problems that I enumerate, above. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The early powered flight section contains the line "was claimed to be the first airplane flight unassisted by catapult". There should be at least some sort of caveat here considering this is contradicted by numerous other sources, some linked in this same article. Maybe something like "was claimed, incorrectly" or "was claimed by some at the time" 2610:148:1F00:3000:60A2:6E67:970B:ACCE (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific American^[1] and the Smithsonian^[2] state this is the case, though considering how widely it's repeated across the rest of Wikipedia it seems bizarre this one paragraph continues to be wrong based on a blog post. 2600:1005:B0F0:604E:8DE:E394:C06:AAB8 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the 14-bis "was claimed to be the first airplane flight unassisted by catapult". BilCat (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my suggestion to clarify by changing it to "was claimed by some at the time", since we know it isn't true. 2600:1005:B0F0:604E:8DE:E394:C06:AAB8 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained, if not Santos, who was the first to fly unassisted by a catapult. Smithsonian says, "Their 1903 flyer took off unaided although it used a launch track and a wheeled carriage instead of attached wheels and a runway," which does not say that it sustained flight in that configuration. The recognized flight used the catapult, as explained by the reference given, to shorten and smooth out the take-off run. Huffman agrees that their earlier experiments were without catapult, but does not call them "flights". The question revolves around what is a "flight". Santos' aircraft sustained flight, but in ground effect only. So, yes, it took off unaided but that's its only claim to fame, as explained by the reference given. I'm happy with the current text. Sincerely. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) does not consider Wright Flyer hops prior to the 1903 flight to have set any kind of record. The Ader Éole "flew" 50m at 8 inches, taking off on its own power. See: Flight altitude record. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Aiplane" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Aiplane has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23 § Aiplane until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/myths-about-the-wright-br/

[2] ttps://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1904/huffman.cfm

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ::::::::::Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for people who value information and learning. Readers whose first response is to recoil at the presence of unfamiliar spelling probably don’t value information and learning. Variations in spelling are evident in paper books too. [[User:Dolphin51|<i style="color: green;">''Dolphin''</i>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<span style="color: blue;">t</span>]])'' 22:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
+::::::::::Idc that this is 8 years old but you are real fucked up by saying “By the good graces Commonwealth English is allowed to Exist on Wikipedia” Holy fuck are you hearing yourself? Get a life “you should be thankful”
+::::::::::Cth. English is spoken and written by up to 2 Billion  people. Cth. English is standard English. [[Special:Contributions/124.183.129.82|124.183.129.82]] ([[User talk:124.183.129.82|talk]]) 14:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 :why not '''plane''' or '''aircraft''' both terms are used internationally  [[User:NotOrrio|NotOrrio]] ([[User talk:NotOrrio|talk]]) 05:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 ::Because "plane" is too informal, and not all aircraft are airplanes/aeroplanes. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 05:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)