Talk:Trapezoidal wing

Trapezoid

Perhaps linking Trapezoid in this article might help? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. However I am not happy with this shape being alos described as a "diamond". Are these terms really used for the same shape of wing? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall a trapezoid wing being called a 'diamond' wing either so I would agree. Diamond points to Lozenge and Rhombus which are different to a trapezoid.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am confused because one wing of the F-104 is a trapezoid, while for the F-22 it is more like a triangle. OTOH the whole wing of the F-104 is a hexagon while for the F-22 it is a diamond - which is a kind of trapezoid with rotational symmetry. I have no idea which of these (if either) "trapezoid" officially describes - half the wing or all of it? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always taken the term to mean the shape of only one wing panel (they are separate panels on the '104'), looking at one half of the F-22 I would say that it is a trapezoid still. Maybe this needs to be made clearer in the article but I can't think of a reference that says it just applies to one wing panel. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Diamond" refers to the shape of the entire lifting surface of 5th gen LO-aircraft such as the YF-23. They are not the same as the Trapezoidal wing and stem from different considerations. --Moritzgedig (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

F-22/F-35 are not trapezoidal wings...

... they are clipped deltas with a reverse sweep on the rear for radar cross section reasons. They are no more trapezoidal wings than the DC-3 is a swept wing design. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They may appear trapezoidal in shape but they are not Trapezoidal wings. 1. They are too big. 2. They became that shape out or different considerations (Low Observability, not structural). --Moritzgedig (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinking to AfD

This topic turns out at best to be misnamed and at worst is not able to stand alone under any name.

The term "trapezoidal" is just a geometrical classification of any straight-edged and tapered planform and covers all aspect ratios, and in reliable sources even tapered swept wings are recognised as trapezoidal. See for example:

• Tom Benson; Wing Area, NASA
• Ilan Kroo ; AA241 Aircraft Design: Synthesis and Analysis Wing Geometry Definitions, Stanford University.
• G. Dimitriadis; Aircraft Design Lecture 2: Aerodynamics, Université de Liège.

Options appear to be:

1. Source the notability of the thin low-aspect-ratio straight (unswept) tapered wing (outside of any more general discussion) and find a more suitable article title.
2. Source the notability of the generic trapezoidal wing planform (outside of any more general discussion) and expand the scope of this article accordingly.
3. Delete this unsourced and error-riddled article altogether.

Comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does need work but there is hope for it. Fuller explanations for the thinking behind this design can be found in F-104 books (I have many), Lockheed used the term and that would also be citable. The Lockheed X-7 is not mentioned, I believe it was partly used for testing this wing shape along with smaller artillery rockets fitted with cameras. I am fairly sure that the X-3 Stilleto drawings and data were handed over to Lockheed. Certainly in relation to Lockheed aircraft it can be referenced, the others mentioned in this article could be editor opinion. I'm happy to try and improve it, I think the name should remain as 'Lockheed trapezoidal wing' would be too specific and they were not the only company to use it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can find arguments for a thin, low-aspect-ratio, unswept trapezoidal wing but nowhere can I find a reliable source saying that this is the definitive trapezoidal form. On the contrary, I cited three sources in the above which treat the "trapezoidal" wing as a more general object. Then, the phrase "Lockheed wing" crops up, but only in discussions contrasting Lockheed's thin, low-aspect-ratio, unswept trapezoidal proposal of the moment with say the proposed "Convair wing" which was a delta. Much as I respect the opinions of experienced editors, I respect reliable sources more. And here, support for the present topic's notability appears to be sorely lacking. Polemic is fine, but it needs backing up with RS. No RS, no deal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A cite has been added to the article: Gunston, Bill. Jane's Aerospace Dictionary. London, England. Jane's Publishing Company Ltd, 1980. ISBN 0 531 03702 9, page 436. Given that I found three sources contradicting the claimed definition of a "trapezoidal wing", I think we need some stronger evidence that Gunston supports it as a definition and not merely an example. Can anybody quote the relevant text here so that we can see what it does support? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the material I have now been able to dig up is enough to rescue this article. I had to drastically reorient its scope and emphasis in the direction of something verifiable, though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)