Talk:Powered lift

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

Moved stuff in[edit]

I just moved lots of stuff from Rotorcraft after much discussion. Apologies if it's a bit rough and ready, hope others of you can take it from here. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ICAO position on powered lift[edit]

Is not borne out by the link which is to an agenda item for discussion. Hence I've tagged it as dubious. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 2, Para 1.2, lines 2-3 was where I copy-pasted it from. The real difficulty is that it feels inconsistent with the rest of the document. I couldn't find any direct contradiction (not that I looked very hard) but there seems to be an underlying assumption that powered lifts are distinct from rotorcraft (whereas the quotation implies that rotorcraft are a subset of powered lifts). The important thing is that, even in spite of this, the powered lift category is pretty inclusive. If you can find a better quote that makes this point in a less unfortunate way, go to it. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is that the document is not from the ICAO as such but a piece put forward by the US to the ICAO arguing for changes to the ICAO classification system, rather han piecemeal decisions by indvidual states. As such it is a restatement of the FAA position. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There, I'll never take Born2flie's references seriously again Face-wink.svg. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Classification of VTOL aircraft[edit]

Hi, I have started a discussion at Talk:VTOL#Classification of VTOL aircraft — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tilting intermediates[edit]

There are at least two projects which blur the line between tiltrotor and tiltwing. One is the Karem OSTR, the other is AgustaWestland's future bling. As Powered Lift is a new category (for both?), Steelpillow suggested we discuss: Where do we place these? TGCP (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

These machines do appear to lie across the boundary, with some areas of the wing surface titling and others not. Both tiltwings and tiltrotors used to be rare and commonly lumped together as convertiplanes. I'd suggest two options for discussion (feel free to offer more options):
  1. The tiltwing and convertiplane articles are rather short, the tiltrotor article is not that long either. Why not merge the two tilting articles into the convertiplane article?
  2. A tiltwing tilts its rotors too. Could the tiltwing article be merged into the titrotor article?
One problem with the first is that the once-popular term "convertiplane" seems to have fallen out of use. One problem with the second is that industry definitions are unlikely to support classifying the one tilting type as a subtype of the other.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
One possible distinction is whether the lifting device operates as a propeller or a rotor. This source says only rotors have cyclic pitch, and propellers don't. Thus tiltrotors can use proprotors for low speed maneouver, while tiltwings must use airfoils for some movements, according to the source. TGCP (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure. That may be more of an observation than a definition. For example, what if the wing does not tilt and nor do the propellers have cyclic pitch control? This is neither a tiltwing nor a tiltrotor according to the source's descriptions. Meanwhile, I have posted a link here on the Aircraft wikiproject talk page, so hopefully we will get some fresh insights from other editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much an airplane with movable props (no control in hover), not a tiltrotor - again, rotors have cyclic pitch, propellers do not. If a viable project came along we could consider it, but not before. Let's stick to documented projects and expert opinions. TGCP (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
But is that a definition? For example many autogyro rotors do not have cyclic pitch control. Also, a propeller typically has variable pitch allowing roll control in the hover, while differential tilt allows yaw control - only vertical attitude control needs some additional device. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's what the source says for aircraft with multiple rotors/props : "Using propellers rather than rotors means tilt-wings fly differently from helicopters or tilt-rotors". It goes for controllability; tiltwings need movable surfaces (as gyros do) to have reasonable control near hover (some gyros can hover, if only briefly - gyros aren't Powered Lift anyway, so we can leave them out). Another defining distinction could be ability to move powerlift device individually (the differential tilt you mention). Designs are too varied to be categorized rigidly, we can't expect to make rules that apply to every single type. What we *can* do is go by source. TGCP (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)