Talk:Gliding flight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft / Gliding (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon


"How can I soar with eagles if I am surrounded by Turkeys". Soaring is the art of not coming down whilst still coming down. A bit enigmatic, but simple. Gliders fly because they are descending, ALL THE TIME. If they stop descending then they descend very rapidly, i.e. Stall. What the Americans call Soaring is still only gliding, they just do it in rising air more often than us Brits.

Gliders can actually do loop-the-loops and so forth. They are not limited to always descending, and can gain altitude (without soaring) and without stalling. However, they are constantly losing energy (except where they are able to soar successfully).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion I see no harm in a central Glider or un-powered flying MACHINE (not animal) article with links to:- Hang gliders, Paragliders, Gliders/Sailplanes (there is a difference), and possibly a separate entry for transport and military gliders like the BV40 glider interceptor!!!

Anyway, my tuppence worth for what it is worthPetebutt (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A peace was negotiated on Feb 18 and some page moves and splits were undertaken. See the Talk:Glider archives for details. In my opinion several of the articles have been significantly improved in that time. In the meantime, contributions to the articles are always very welcome, and its good to see new faces. I'm archiving the older talk page sections. Regards AKAF (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Gliding (flight)Gliding flight — The parentheses are not needed to distinguish this from other articles on the Gliding (disambiguation) page but there is already an article with this name that redirects here, so a simple move is not possible. JMcC (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm ambivalent on the proposed move, but it seems to me this should be the primary topic for Gliding, so I would also support a move to that title. Powers T 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The sport of gliding is probably what most people would want to see when they type in the word. Gliding is a featured article which was recently reviewed by the FAR process and no comment was made. Gliding is also an substantial activity with over 120,000 participants worldwide and former Olympic demonstration sport. Although this is not a definitive test, try Google. This gives an indication of what people might be looking for. Of course, there are other uses of the word and so the disambig page is only a click away. If the proposed move involves changing the title of the gliding article, then I would oppose the move. Incidentally this was a topic of much discussion (now archived) about two years ago. After arbitration, the sport of gliding was agreed as the main use of the word. JMcC (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not clear on what arbitration has to do with it; they are not supposed to comment on content issues, which is what this is. Two years ago or not, consensus can change. Anyway, I admit I haven't done a lot of investigation into this; I merely expressed my sense of the issue. Powers T 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Unnecessary and ugly, ugly parenthesis. Let this article soar, free of them! walk victor falk talk 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split article[edit]

What do people think about splitting this article into two, i.e. Gliding flight (humans) and Gliding flight (animals)?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose No reason was given for this proposal. Gliding by animals is very similar to gliding by aircraft, especially types of lift used and the principle of the glide angle. There should be no confusion by having it all in one article and splitting it would result in duplication. There are interesting comparisons between the glide angles of birds and aircraft which would be lost by a split. Furthermore the article is not so big as to require a split. JMcC (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply Apologies for not giving a reason for the suggested split. I am a biologist, and when I came to this article I was expecting much more material on gliding, non-human animals (for instance, the wor "pagium" is not even mentioned. I feel there could be considerably more information added regarding this, and others might see the same for human gliding. So, I was looking to the future. In addition, there seems to be a trend toward splitting articles about behavioural activities into human and non-human articles. I feel this is one of those. Regarding duplicity, this simply cannot be avoided when splitting articles this way - but a little duplication can be tolerated.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't suggested "duplicity" would be a problem, just "duplication". I have no idea what "pagium" is. If it is as significant as you suggest, it deserves an article on its own. The article was intended to describe the physics of gliding flight in all its forms. Human gliding is thoroughly described in several articles such as gliding, paragliding and hang-gliding, as are the individual animals. This article should not have a detailed description of any single aircraft or animal because it attempts to unify the principles that affect all gliding, but if you want to insert a short description and a link to a detailed article on Pagium then that would be OK in my opinion. JMcC (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. In researching ways of expanding this article from the animal perspective, I think the article containing the information I expected is already contained in Flying and gliding animals. So, I withdraw my suggestion for a split of this article. I appreciate that not every gliding animal should appear in this article, but I think what might be interesting to the reader is examples of the different ways in which animals achieve gliding e.g. wings/feathers, body attachments, body shape changes. Do you agree? I have already added some, and I will add some others in time. By the way, it is not "pagium" but "patagium" - completely my fault as it was my typo. And there is an article on Patagium.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem if you added information on the different ways in which animals achieve gliding e.g. wings/feathers, body attachments, body shape changes. Aircraft usually do it with wings: some rigid, some flexible, while some wings can change shape using flaps to change the amount of lift. There are also Lifting bodies. JMcC (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gliding flight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)