Talk:Flaperon

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

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Intro

The intro makes extensive use of technical terms and is therefore difficult for someone lacking background knowledge to understand. Perhaps this could be improved. Lewdswap (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The captions associated with the two images of planes claim they are fitted with "flaperons", but this is not useful if you don't know which bit is the part in question! This could be improved by either adding arrows pointing at the parts, or by showing pictures of planes not fitted with flaperons for comparison. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to explain things to people who don't already know about them.81.154.116.170 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 81.154.116.170 particularly as people will be coming to this article due to the discovery this week of an object that has been reported to be a "flaperon" on Réunion island and is likely from MH370. If the report is accurate then the flaperon that was found is of the style that's located in the mid-part of the wing.

Flaperons are going to be tricky to show as there does not seem to be a consistent definition as they perform different roles depending on the aircraft.

Most aircraft have two types of Flight control surfaces on the trailing (rear) part of each wing.

The ailerons are located on the the rear edge of the wing on the section furthest from the fuselage. They are used to tilt the aircraft from side to side during flight. Usually when the aileron on one side goes up the aileron on the opposite side goes down.
The flaps are also located on the rear edge of the wings and are on the section of the wing closest to the fuselage. The flaps adapt the wing to be suitable for low speed flight such as during takeoff and landing. They are used a little during takeoff and are fully extended just before and during the landing. Unlike ailerons where when one goes up the other goes down the flaps are always deployed the same way both sides of the aircraft.

Nearly all aircraft have ailerons and flaps. A few aircraft have been built with a single control surface on each wing known as a "flaperon." Both of the aircraft pictured in this article are using this style of control surface. The flaperons are used to both to tilt the aircraft from side to side during flight and to adapt the wing for low speed flight such as during takeoff and landing.

Some aircraft have a control surface between the ailerons and flaps that is also known as a flaperon. As they are located in the mid-part of the wing they perform neither role as well as pure ailerons and flaps. Unfortunately, I have not spotted a good picture on Wikipedia of this style of flaperon. For example, File:Boeing 727 flight control surfaces.svg is a great picture and has parts labeled "inboard aileron" and "inboard aileron tab". If the inboard aileron and its tab can both be lowered during landing then they could also be labeled as flaperons. --Marc Kupper|talk

Fluidics

The paragraph on fluidics seems unintelligible. Could someone have a go at making it clearer, please? Arrivisto (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section even included in this article? I thought it was spam or vandalism at first, only after some thought did it seem to relate at all to aerodynamics. I suggest it be removed or completely rewritten to involve aerodynamics. Jmonti824 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]