Jump to content

Talk:Glider (sailplane)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Move from "glider" to "glider (sailplane)"

As per the discussion above I am doing the following:

  1. Move glider to glider (sailplane)
  2. Redirecting glider to glider (sailplane)
  3. Adding links to glider aircraft, glider (disambiguation), gliding (flight) and gliding promininently to the header of glider (sailplane).

I would request that noone undo this move without first discussing it on the talk pages, to avoid further conflict. The intent is to restrict the scope of this article to sport sailplanes and leave other material in glider aircraft and other subarticles. Regards AKAF (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for making the move. I might have waited a day or so in case anyone else had any thoughts, but since they did not join in the debate, they can't complain too much. I have moved the suggested links into the introduction. I think it now looks tidier instead a mass of italics, almost like terms and conditions. The links are still prominent with one exception: gliding (flight). The article is about aircraft and so I genuinely could not find an easy way in the intro of explaining about types of aircraft, and then to fit in a reference to how they fly. However I have provided a link to gliding (flight) in the section called "Launch, flight and landing". This is not to downplay this article, but when the article moves on to the details about how the aircraft fly, it seems to be the place in which the reader would want a link, rather than in the definition of the aircraft in the intro. I hope that this will not be misconstrued. I have also improved the disambiguation page which did not have a link to glider aircraft at all. I need to check in the next few days the links (and there are hundreds) to see which ones are correctly linked to 'gliding (sailplane)' and which should be linked to 'glider aircraft'. I guess about 98% are OK at present having checked them a month or so ago, but there will be some in the articles about flight in general that will be wrong. JMcC (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - many thanks for your involvement here and your patience. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I'll back off for now. Gathering motivation to maybe have a crack at the aerodynamics section. Give me a yell if I can be of use. AKAF (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Discussion moved to Talk:Glider#Requested_move --Cybercobra (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Flaps

The article states : Flaps are fitted on some gliders so that the optimal lift of the wing is available at all speeds.

That's not quite true - the long description : The tailplane generates drag, and the minimum drag occurs when the elevator is in line with the horizontal stabiliser (or there abouts), which sets a specific speed for a given wing profile. Flying at a different speed incurs more drag because the elevator is no longer in the optimum position for that wing profile. The flaps change the wing profile, so now we can fly at a range of speeds without having to move the elevator from its minimum drag configuration and we can therefore maximise our glide angle at a range of speeds. Now that's all a bit long winded, so can we reduce it down to a simple sentence? Impeachable (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Forward Slip

Changed the glide slope control maneauver previously labelled as "side slip" to forward slip, as a side slip is used to maintain straight flight in a crosswind. A forward slip on the other hand is used for glide slope control with opposing control and a typically nose sideways positioning of the craft. Common error in naming. Will provide "From the Ground Up" reference for those requiring a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.125.111 (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Early Flight

I have unreverted the Caley bit. There were lots of early fliers that got off the ground for a few metres, often without killing someone. Caley was one of them. But it was Lilienthal who first had controlled, repeatable flight, and Wright brothers acknowledge that.

If you want to expand that disucsion here then fine. But just to give Caley the credit here without expanison of others is not appropriate. I'd say leave it in the Early Flight article.

Also, as a rule, only revert vandalism. If you do not like an edit then improve it rather than starting a revert war. Tuntable (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that you deleted referenced material, and the wikipedia is verifiability over truth, you don't really have a leg to stand on. Your first edit subject line said: "The claim by Cayely is weak. Many sort of flew before him. Lilienthal was the first to really fly repeatedly with control." This appears to be an edit done simply on your opinion, i.e. OR. Reverted again.- Wolfkeeper 06:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"as a rule, only revert vandalism." Actually, there is no such rule on Wikipedia. Instead, there is a guideline called Bold, Revert, Discuss, which would be useless as titled if we were only allowed to revert vandalism! - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
From reading around, Cayley is generally recognised to be the first aeroengineer, and to have made the first well documented gliders. I agree that Lillenthal and the Wright brothers made *many* more flights, but it overstates Lillenthals work to say he was the first. I also understand that Lillenthal considered that he was extending Cayley's work.- Wolfkeeper 06:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that Eric Gordon England would have been more relevant to the sailplane but we dont appear to mention him. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have left Cailies section in, but expanded it. I do not think we need to offer an opinion as to who was first, just state what each one did. I do not understand the England reference "first recorder soaring flight" given that Lilienthal ridge soared for extended periods 20 years early.

I do get very annoyed at people that just arogantly revert without any effort to integrate. Tuntable (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not arrogance by Wolfkeeper, it's just not a very good addition. If you try to improve the edit to integrate it into the article, you aren't left with anything substantial. For example "Depending on one's definition of..." is also a bit too chatty. Making an absolute statement about uncontrollability must also be wrong. I have listened to Derek Piggott talk about the control device on the Cayley glider which Sir George called an "influencer". Derek said it had some influence, though not much, when he flew it. JMcC (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put in minimal control. But you could have added that instead of just reverting. And You pulled the other parts.

So, here is the methodology. I do all the work, and you are the judge. If it does not please you, you just revert, and then I have another go. No need for you do do anything. Sounds fair. Tuntable (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Highest Glide Ratio

The article suggests that current sailplanes have glide ratios around 70:1. The best open class sailplanes currently flying show glide ratios around 60:1. And more common 15 meter span aircraft have glide ratios between 38:1 and 48:1. Club aircraft range from 23:1 to 40:1.

Checking the article shows that it only refers to the Eta, best L/D is touching 70:1 with the flaps at zero according to their performance graph here, I don't doubt it having looked at one closely. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Noting that you probably read that in the 'comparison' table, which in my view is amateur rubbish and should be deleted in toto. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Table amended (though the line was for maximum glide angle). The table was added because there is some confusion in many people's minds when the word 'gliding' is mentioned. It is often followed by the question "Do you mean hang gliding?" The table is an attempt to clarify the types. I would not object to deleting the 'amateur' table if there was a neater way of removing the common confusion. An alternative would be to amend the table to remove errors and over-simplifications. JMcC (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Merge article with Glider aircraft article

Added {{Merge|Glider aircraft}} Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose No reason/benefit has been given for a merger. Glider (sailplane) is a detailed article describing just soaring aircraft, whereas there are a wide range of unpowered aircraft in Glider aircraft. A merger would create an over-large article with a great imbalance in the level of detail about just one type of glider. JMcC (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note:Multiple venues - note this discussion was closed at Talk:Glider aircraft MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Glider (sailplane) → sailplane – Sailplane redirects here. I find the current title unnecessarily awkward. Glider is a dab page, but "sailplane" is short and clear. It's another word for just this type of thing.ospalh (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose strongly Yes, 'sailplane' another word for the same thing but it is not the word that everyone uses. After a long discussion on this topic, this title was the result. Please review these arguments in the archives. JMcC (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: i can't find the point where it was discussed that "glider (sailplane)" should be used instead of just "sailplane", especially in light of WP:PRECISE...: "If it exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title." If "sailplane" is too obscure, then why use it as the disambiguating parenthesis? ospalh (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
See Archive 2 for the full discussion JMcC (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Lead and title

This article currently begins, "A glider or sailplane is a type of glider aircraft used in the sport of gliding." With the recent move of Glider aircraft to Glider (aircraft) that logically reads, "A glider or sailplane aircraft is a type of glider used...." which seems clumsy and silly.

I think it would be clearer and more logical if the lead were to be rephrased something like, "A sailplane is a type of glider, used mainly in the sport of gliding."

Yes we all talk about "gliders" when we mean specifically sailplanes, but that is because we do not live in an encyclopedia. The word is ambiguous and WP:PRECISE says of such a title that "If it exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title." This would suggest that this article be moved to "Sailplane".

These two changes would appear to be consistent with each other, but I know this has been a contentious subject so I think a discussion is the best way to air them - at least at first. What do you think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I still tend to think of gliders as the aircraft with an undercarriage that are used in the sport/pastime of gliding. I think Wikipedia should call things with the names that most people use and so I think that the name of this type of aircraft should have the "word" glider in there somewhere. (There may be a difference between the US and the rest of the English speaking world.) However there are other uses for the word, hence the bracketed addition. I have changed the text. JMcC (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that modern gliding enthusiasts think of a "glider" as a high-performance sailplane. But military aviation historians have a very different idea of what a "glider" is - as, I am sure, biologists and marine engineers do. So the idea that a "glider" is a sailplane unless otherwise qualified is very much a personal bias, however much in the majority gliding enthusiasts might be. The comments and changes you just made (also to Glider (aircraft)) appear to me to go against what I am suggesting, so in the spirit of be bold, revert, discuss I am reverting the changes until this discussion can reach some form of consensus (and so we can all see the original form of words the discussion refers to). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sailplane is a subset of Glider (aicraft) not all Glider (aircraft) are sailplanes. Not sure anybody would call, for example, a Airspeed Horsa a sailplane. I also think we have a general problem with all these glider articles, they have been moved and renamed so often that most of the lead sections are a bit of a mess and dont relate sometimes to the current content. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sailplane would make more sense as a natural disambiguation for this article, and it would also be an appropriate title, considering that the article is about sailplanes (even if they're commonly called gliders). Having said that, the lead should also acknowledge the way the word "glider" is used to refer to "sailplane" in common parlance, instead of veering away from it for the sake of trying to be correct. While a sentence like "Sailplane (commonly referred to simply as glider) is a type of glider..." is somewhat awkward, it's also helpful, especially considering Glider (aircraft) has a hatnote pointing here. — daranz [ t ] 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The History subsection on this article is poorly written

It's not at all encyclopediadic. All the (interior monologues) inserted make the article sound like someone's diary, not an encyclopedia.

Next time one of you super editors wander upon this article, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.206.148 (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made some changes - see my diff. Dolphin (t) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glider (sailplane). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glider (sailplane). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

Aside from ENGVAR (before that gets used in an argument), I would have thought that at least some consistency in language is a feature of prose of a well constructed article. The words glider and sailplane are being used interchangeably in many parts of the text (or are they?) and I believe one or the other of the words should be used consistently when the article is talking about the same thing. We all like to write and contribute to articles on things we are knowledgeable about and can source, but getting the prose right is something we pilots might not necessarily be best at. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The word sailplane is used in the article 20 times, including the title; whereas the word glider is used over 100 times. Therefore I suggest that, apart from the title, and the lede where the similarity of the two words is explained, "sailplane" should be changed to "glider". Dolphin (t) 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The words "glider" and "sailplane" are used interchangeably in the lead ("A glider or sailplane is a type of glider aircraft used in the leisure activity and sport of gliding.[1][2]") and elsewhere. But Glider (aircraft)#Recreational types treats "sailplane" (correctly in my opinion) as one of three types of glider, along with hang gliders and paragliders. This article should be reworded to reflect this distinction. Loraof (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I've done what I can in this regard--I hope someone else can go through the article and do any more wording corrections as needed.
One problem with this article is that it is sometimes about sailplanes specifically but is sometimes about gliders in general. Loraof (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states at the beginning that is about gliders (sailplanes). There are separate articles on related aircraft and other meanings of the word. I cannot see where the use of the word 'glider' within this article could give the impression it is about anything else other than its specific subject. Originally there were just unpowered aircraft with rigid wings. They were, and still are, widely called gliders throughout the world. The word "sailplane" is used mainly when there may be a doubt eg in European legislation, but it is not in such common use, and so it would be pedantic to use it throughout the article. When hang-gliders and paragliders appeared, they were given specific names that distinguished them from gliders, even though they are craft that can also glide, use thermals and use ridge lift. By analogy, if you look at the article on airliners, you will see the word aircraft used throughout, even though the term "aircraft" technically includes balloons. Are you suggesting that this article is also amended to achieve superfluous "consistency"? Beyond this aviation article, because of disambiguation, it was felt that the other possible of uses of the word created a need to distinguish this type of aircraft from video games and chairs. Finally, I have no objection to the table that compares sailplanes, hang-gliders and paragliders being titled as such, because the fine distinction is needed here. Thank you for improving the article. JMcC (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Sailplanes are one type of glider--the words are not synonyms. When something is said to have some property, but the property only applies to sailplanes and not to other types of glider, it's factually incorrect to say the the property applies to gliders in general.
I didn't say anything about "consistency"--that was put in this thread 16 months ago by someone else.
As for the word "sailplane" not being "in such common use", that's not true, at least in the US. When being around sailplane owners, I've heard "sailplane" used virtually 100% of the time. Loraof (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought we were still having a discussion, but changes have been made nevertheless. However I am not going to start an edit war over the use of American English versus British English. JMcC (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all

The international gliding governing body is the FAI gliding commission.
The highest level of competition is the Sailplane Grand Prix, and it's qualifying races.
These high performance gliders compete in a sailplane grand prix, named so by the sports governing body.
The governing body conflates the two terms, stating that:

"The terms: glider or sailplane? Gliding or soaring?
The terms glider and sailplane are interchangeable but sailplane is more common in the USA."

So the international governing body says they are exactly the same thing.

The definition is on their "about our sport" page
The site has documentation on those events, here. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

All the people who know about the sport, will tell you the highest level of the sport of gliding is the World Gliding Championships. Manufacturers design their products with these competitions in mind. The grand prix events were merely an attempt to make the sport more appealing to the general public. Most of the best pilots don't enter. JMcC (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glider_(sailplane)/Archive_3&oldid=1155883976"