|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Servo tab article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated Start-class)|
The given description of a servo tab is actually more accurately applied to a "balance tab" since the action merely serves to assist the pilot's input. With a true servo tab, the pilot's input is not delivered to the main control surface at all, but only to the tab. The aerodynamic force exerted by the tab is therefore the only means of operation of the main surface. It follows that there can be no such thing as an "anti-servo tab."
The example shown in the photograph is in fact an "anti-balance tab." It allows the pilot to control the main surface directly, but creates an opposing force that is directly related to control deflection, thus diminishing any tendency to over control.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2005
The information on this page doesn't match some of the information I read in some aviation books. I think it requires expert attention and reliable sources. There are some good German sites on the subject such as this one but I am neither native English nor German speaker therefore I am not gonna try to edit the article.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- As a published author in the field I would probably qualify, so I have reviewed it and removed the Flettner claim. It can be put back in with a proper ref cited. Otherwise the rest of the text is either cited or is correct. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. While searching about this dilemma I stumbled accross this forum site. It looks like somebody who were also searching the subject himself came here and edited the article without enough info or relevant sources. In my language flettner is used for other secondary control surfaces such as trim, servo, balance etc. as well but that may well be a false friend.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Control surface =rudder ?
- /* References */ It can't be a ref, w/o linking to the fact it verifies -- see talk pg under "Unmasked See-also"
bcz what i converted from a fake ref to a "See also" has a single page number (suggesting it is alleged to document one or more specific statements rather just be of interest to the article's readers). If it's intended as a ref, it must be linked using the <ref> facility from each factual assertion that it verifies. If we could link to an online source of that page, it would probably be practical for some editor who doesn't own the work in question to clean up after the lazy or markup-ignorant colleague. (However, it might be of substantial value to know whether the same edit, or at least editor, were responsible for both the citation and one or more specific facts, as indicated by the edit history of the article.) But you'd be foolish to wait more than a week for me to be the one who examines the edit history even far enuf to have an opinion on the prospect of it helping at all.
--Jerzy•t 13:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, i gave it 5 minutes; see the 5th contrib to the accompanying article, which is that contributor's 1st of something like a two-digit count of contribs. And AFAIC foresee, count me out.
Jerzy•t 14:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)