Talk:Gliding

Gliding is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 26, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 13, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 18, 2010	Featured article review	Kept

Current status: Featured article

Aviation: Gliding

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the gliding project.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Glider

Please see Talk:Glider GrahamN

There are separate articles for Glider, Motor glider and Touring Motor glider. There is much redundancy and overlap between this article and those. I have moved some of the content to these articles to trim this article down closer to the 32KB guideline. More work is needed, so we can add more content to this article.

Ray Van De Walker: I have moved the text you added about about "rotor" in the "Glider" article to here. But I'm not sure about your statement that most sailplane altitude records were set by riding rotors. I could be wrong, but I thought most record-breaking flights were done in wave. GrahamN

Amos Shapira: You use "Recently" about powerfull powered gliders being authorized to tow. I'd like to suggest that if you want to make this text relevant for a long period then you change that to some year estimate (e.g. "as of 1995" or somesuch, I don't know the exact year).

Hi, Amos, thanks for the comment. You are right, of course. I'm afraid I don't know the year either. I didn't even know about this business of motor gliders towing other gliders until somebody added that sentence to the article. One excellent thing about Wikipedia is that there is no hierarchy of contributors. We are all equal here. So, if you see some error or failing in any article, please don't feel you have to consult or ask permission - just plunge in and edit the article to fix the problem. By the way, you can automatically sign your name with the date by typing four tildes (~) in a row. Like I'm about to do now: GrahamN 23:56 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

André Somers: Hi, I have extended the text on launch methods a bit. Not only diesel engines are used in winches, also plain petrol or even LPG or natural gas. I have also added a subsection on the rubber band start method.

And recently electro motors have come into use because of their superior handling compared to combustion engines. Actually the sailplane winch warrants its own article by now, I think. -- Andreas B. 22:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The frequent mutation of "evinced" into "evidenced" amuses me. --Ghewgill 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with "evinced" as a word. However the sentence is rather inelegant. --Jmcc150 08:20 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Animal Flight & Gliding vs Soaring

Gliding and soaring are not the same thing (this artical says as much), so I really don't think "soar" or "soaring" should redirect here as if the two were synonymous. This is an important distinction in animal flight, and conflating the two doesn't make things more clear.

On the subject of animal flight, directing people to bird flight is not good enough, because many more animals than birds fly by gliding and soaring. This article should either discuss animals and other natural gliders and soarers (heck, some seed pods can glide), or be reworded to reflect that fact that many things may glide or soar, whether they are man-made or not .

I don't want to hack into this page myself, as I am no expert on aerodynamics, but I may well do it if you don't pay me ONE MILLION DOLLARS, or do something to correct this page's shortcomings, whichever is easiest. John.Conway 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have set up Soaring as a disambiguation page. No knowledge of aerodynamics required. Please send me the million dollars, if it arrives. JMcC 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animals face much the same issues in gliding that people do, and most glider pilots do well to observe these little experts of the air going about their business. Logically, much animal flight is normally considered gliding, but the article is using the term in a restricted human-only sense. My rough estimate is that covering animal flight may add a couple of k or so to the article, we could mostly just reference out to the other sub articles and then some light rephrasing would be all that is required.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article is a little above 42k, but not badly so. I note that the "summary style" soaring part of this article seems to have essentially 100% overlap with Lift (soaring), but I would be loathe to reduce the section here very much. Adding the shared material to a template and including it from both articles may be better than we have at the moment; it's unconventional to do that for main text, but it would stop them getting out of step. The other way would be to do some pruning to make it more summary style, but as I say, I'm reluctant.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word for the vast majority people is the sport of gliding. This is the basis for naming articles in Wikipedia. This article is not about the act of gliding but the sport. Unless you have evidence that other creatures do it for fun, then trying to include all other possible meanings of the same word in one article does not make sense. Other lesser meanings are what disambiguation pages are for. On Wolfkeeper's basis words with multiple meanings would either be a disambiguation page or one giant article covering every possible meaning. For example the article on the city of London would just be one of many entries entry on a disambiguation page called London. This is not how Wikipedia is constructed. A rarer user who types gliding while looking for information about flying squirrels, will not be inconvenienced by the existing reference to a disambiguation page at the top of the article. JMcC (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware that commonality is the sole criteria for inclusion in the article. Isn't an article supposed to include all points of view, even as you put it, 'lesser ones'?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And taking your example, I note that if you go to London, you get an article that covers Greater London, not just the popular subsets of city of london or Inner London.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move to Gliding (Aviation)

I think this page should be moved to Gliding (Aviation), and be linked to from a more generalised page on gliding. Any objections? John.Conway 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me, though the page should be Gliding (aviation) with a lower case "a". Martin 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but very strong objections from me. In my opinion the sport of gliding is the main use of the word. To give you an idea of the popularity of an under-publicised activity, there are well over 100,000 active glider pilots in the world. There are hundreds of articles that link to Gliding and Gliders in the English Wikipedia alone. The vast majority are about the sport and only a few about bird and bat flight. It is a little like an article on London being moved to London (England). I have set up a disambiguation page instead. If the subject of animal flight needs a page called gliding, I suggest a page is created called Gliding (birds and bats). Incidentally I do recognise that the birds started gliding before the human race, which explains why they are still better at it. JMcC 10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a different reason many more sport articles link to this page other than it being the main use - in that it doesn't do the job of describing gliding outside of aviation, so people have refrained from linking (I know I have). I just want to be able to link to something that describes the general aerodynamics of gliding. Gliding (birds and bats) is a poor compromise because may other things glide (pterosaurs, squirrels, frogs, lizards, seed pods, etc.) If the move was to happen, it main gliding article would maintain a section on the sport. We need some more input on this. John.Conway 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JMcC. --Guinnog 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - it seems pretty clear to me that the aviation use of Gliding is the primary meaning. 'What links here' should always be your first port of call when considering a page move and is the fundamental basis of Wikipedia's article naming guidlines - ie. most editors should just be able to guess a link to an article without checking it. There are some incoming links (e.g. in bat and Hero System) where the process of gliding is intended but they are in the minority.

However, I agree that we need a more general page on the lift/drag aspects of the process of gliding, although much of this is infact covered in Bird flight. That could perhaps be at gliding (aeronautics) or possibly glide, which needs some work in any case. Note however that there is a completely different type of gliding that is a property of liquids, boats, skaters, dancers and snakes (according to my dictionary - your millage may vary), but that is probably best handled with a link to Wiktionary.

Similarly a page on hovering would be useful. AFIK only a handful of birds and insects. And you would also need to look at soaring. -- Solipsist 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gliding" is such a general term that it's silly to limit it to one use of the word. A similar situation, off the top of my head, would be Cycle. Take a look at that page, and then imagine if it were dedicated only to the sport of riding a bicycle (which has it's own page, Cycling. Using this example, a comprimise might be to create an entry for Glide (rather than Gliding) which discusses all of that word's various uses, with links to more specific articles.Dinoguy2 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a page called "Glide", provided there is a link at the beginning to Gliding. JMcC 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review/FAC Notes

History

I think the history section probably ought to make some mention of the use of gliders in several combat missions in the Second World War. The best way is probably to just point over to Military glider for the main details, since it isn't that closely related to gliding as a sport. -- Solipsist 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobatics

I'm not especially familiar with aerobatic competitions, but isn't one of the features of gliding aerobatics in contrast to muscle aerobatics that the pilot has to be especially careful to perform maneuvers with the minimum loss of energy. I recall seeing one demonstration of aerobatics that principally involved beating back and forth above the runway climbing to perform a maneuver at each end. In effect carefully balancing the interplay of potential and kinetic energy. Excess drag in any maneuver would drain kinetic energy and limit the number of maneuvers that could be performed before landing. However, I don't know whether this is typical of aerobatic competitions. -- Solipsist 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

I have passed this article. It is comprehensive, fairly well-referenced, well-illustrated (I actually sort of like that picture of the cumulus clouds with its psychedelic combination of slightly blown highlights, almost impossibly cobalt blue and just a bit too much sharpening ... makes me think of this this song and well-organized. I couldn't find anything that was too egregious for me. Ultimate compliment: I learned a few things I didn't know that made me go "Hmm ..."

One thing to fix, though, if the editors involved want to seek FA status: make sure to include English equivalents for the metric units used when discussing speed records et al. Also, you might want to consider having the pictures alternate sides. This has been shown to improve readability as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes across the page.

Congratulations! Daniel Case 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable material moved over from the article page

Ballast

Moved from article page:

The idea of using ballast came from a pilot named George Tabery.

I'll concur with User:Jmcc150: this seems plausible, but needs a citable reference for inclusion. -- Solipsist 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further research on rec.aviation.soaring produced a quote from the definitive three volume book on gliders since Daedalus by Martin Simons that ballast was first proposed in Germany in 1934. A Minimoa (pre-war type of glder) had tanks fitted though no year is given. A Schweizer 1-21 had ballast tanks in 1947, the year that George got his Siver C so it is possible he was the first in the USA. I have omitted first users from the article. JMcC 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting history! I'd like to see it in the article, or in Glider (sailplane). But which? - Egmonster (talk)

Ballast is also mentioned in Lift-to-drag ratio: "To achieve high speed across country, gliders are often loaded with water ballast to increase the airspeed (allowing better penetration against a headwind)." Is a headwind the only condition in which ballast is advantageous? I'd assumed reducing your travel time between thermal sources would allow you to cover more ground while soaring conditions are good. Which is a more usual goal? What other reasons justify carrying ballast? (I'm hoping to put a section on aircraft's ballast use into Sailing ballast, but I need more info to be confident in summarising it accurately. Maybe one of you pilots will advise me or put it in yourself. I linked to there from the first use of "ballast" on both Gliding and Gliding flight.) - Egmonster (talk)

Expressions like allowing better penetration against a headwind is the gliding equivalent of an old wives' tale. It is nonsense. Ballast confers improved performance at higher airspeeds, and poorer performance at lower airspeeds, regardless of the headwind or tailwind. On a day with strong thermals that allow cruising between thermals at a high airspeed, the optimum wing loading is higher than the optimum on a day with weak thermals, so there is an incentive for pilots to carry water ballast when strong thermals are anticipated. The water ballast is carried for as long as the strong thermals persist, regardless of whether flying into a headwind or a tailwind.

It is common for a glider pilot to decide that the thermals on the day do not justify the amount of ballast being carried, so the pilot dumps some (or all) of the ballast in order to trade some of the better performance at higher speeds for improved performance at lower speeds. The pilot might not realise it, but he or she is searching for the optimum wing loading for the conditions anticipated for the remainder of the flight.

Ballast is carried to increase the wing loading, with the objective of achieving an optimum wing loading for the strength of the thermals on the day. The optimum wing loading will achieve the fastest average speed across country (ie taking into account the time spent circling in thermals to gain height) but it would be misleading to suggest that ballast is carried to increase the airspeed when cruising between thermals. Glider pilots can fly at whatever speed they like between thermals, regardless of their wing loading. Dolphin (t) 01:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is my last ballast-related edit[1] accurate? The concept can be confusing: the statement that ballast "increases the rate of sink" appeared to support my original intuitive, incorrect assumption that glide ratio should suffer as loading increases. Increased sink rate by itself would seem to contradict the footnoted sentence about vehicle loading, with which I'd struggled in the Gliding flight#Glide ratio section before. Therefore I thought it worth clarification, even though the concept is mentioned a third time three paragraphs later. - Egmonster (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with your last ballast-related edit. Variations in wing loading have no major effect on glide angle (or L/D ratio) but those variations have a significant effect on the airspeed at which a chosen glide angle is achieved. Maximum average speed across country is achieved when the wing loading is the optimum for the average rate of climb achieved in thermals. Consequently, having a wing loading closest to the optimum will lead to the highest average speed across country. That is why ballast is carried, despite the obvious difficulty that slow-speed performance, such as when circling in thermals, deteriorates as wing loading increases. There is a trade-off between better performance at high airspeed between thermals, and poorer performance at low airspeeds in thermals. Dolphin (t) 02:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your helpful answers, Dolphin51. Egmonster 22:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Your link to Wing_loading led me to Gliding_competitions#Water_ballast which is better than the Sailing ballast article mentioned above.[reply]

What do you mean by "when the wing loading is the optimum for the average rate of climb achieved in thermals"? If you don't mind, I'd ask what measure of thermal strength is used, and how optimum wing loading and airspeed/sink rate relate to it. Egmonster (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of a thermal is measured by the rate of climb the pilot achieves in the thermal. Gliders are usually equipped with a special rate-of-climb indicator called a variometer which shows whether the air in which the glider is flying at the time is rising or falling, and what rate of climb or descent the glider is achieving. (A glider with a low wing loading might achieve 3 metres per second in a thermal, but an identical glider with higher wing loading in the same thermal might only achieve 2.5 metres per second, so the two pilots will observe different strengths for the same thermal.)

A graph can be constructed showing strength of thermal on one axis, and optimum wing loading on the other axis. For any design of glider it is possible to use the measured aerodynamic data to draw a curve on this graph, showing the optimum wing loading for any given thermal strength. Such a curve would show that on a day with strong thermals giving a rapid rate of climb, the optimum wing loading will be high so maximum water ballast should be carried. Conversely, on a day with weak thermals the optimum wing loading will be low so no water ballast should be carried. The optimum wing loading will lead to maximum average speed across country, not maximum speed between thermals. The pilot can choose what speed to fly between thermals, but he can't choose what average speed he will achieve across country. (Faster speed between thermals leads to greater loss of height between thermals, and therefore greater time needed in the next thermal to gain height. The optimum speed between thermals can be determined from the MacCready ring). Dolphin (t) 01:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards

Collisions with commercial aircraft are unlikely because glider access to the controlled airspace used by airliners is tightly restricted.

I would like to suggest that if you amend the above to read "...is generally tightly restricted.", it would be acceptable. One might also say 'rare' rather than 'unlikely' but then you would have to supply the stats to justify this - not that that would be impossible, but one must keep in mind that this article is addressing gliding worldwide, and not in any particular country.David FLXD (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is unsourced. Second, gliders w/o any radios/electrical equipment are perfectly legal and frequent along low-level arrival routes, at least at the East-coast U.S. where I flew them, which makes me feel this is a wrong piece of original research. --BACbKA 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit finding a source for a negative statement is trickier than a positive. A recent debate with the UK's Civil Aviation Authority over the universal fitting of transponders has only revealed one collision with an civil airliner (in France in 1999). This occurred in uncontrolled airspace and resulted in no injuries.[2] If there had been more, I have no doubt that the CAA's consultation paper [3] would have listed them. As it was, the CAA's case for transponders was embarrassingly flimsy, despite having the last sixty years of aviation accidents from throughout the world to choose from. The recent Minden incident with a bizjet also occurred in uncontrolled airspace. On that basis I felt that the statement 'collisions with commercial aircraft are unlikely' could be justified, though hard to reference. Secondly, I did not say that gliders could not penetrate controlled airspace. I said it was tightly restricted. There are many areas with low traffic volumes which gliders can penetrate (Class E & F) without radio contact. Class E only requires VFR and F only requires you to exercise caution. To my mind this is not really 'controlled' since since there is no need to contact a controller. Class D is another matter and I hope that your experience in the USA is similar and it really is controlled tightly. Radio contact is mandatory for me to enter Class D, and under ICAO rules it probably is in the USA also. There are places where higher categories of airspace can be penetrated but the rules get even tougher. I think a non-aviating reader would like to be reassured that the chances of an airliner, especially in controlled airspace, hitting a glider are vanishingly small. Do you have any suggestions how this could be phrased? JMcC 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been seen another remarkable collision with a DG 100 and a Tornado GAF fighter-bomber the report of which can be viewed here. (German)

I am sure it is interesting but I do not speak German. However the point of this particular discussion was to decide on the risks for commercial aircraft, in particular in controlled airspace. Did this collision with the military jet occur in controlled airspace? If so, was the glider under the direction of a controller? JMcC 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., only class G is uncontrolled, A-E is controlled, and F is absent. See [4]. If an airliner doesn't look out and doesn't give right of way to glider, which they must, unless it's a head-on, in which case both must give way, there'll be a problem. You are right that class D requires radio contact; there might be exceptions by prior permission from the controlling authority (airshows/competitions/special events etc). I am 100% with you on advocating gliding as a safe activity to folks out there, but unless you can cite an external source actually evaluating the risks of a glider collision with an airliner, anything you phrase on the matter is original research. BACbKA 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and style

I'm kind of surprised this is a featured article. In the two sections I read--the intro and winching sections--I noticed numerous runons and odd sounding sentences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.246.41 (talk)

Well, speaking as the copy editor during the FA process and the editor who originally promoted this to GA status, some of the sentences in those sections were probably created, I determined, by machine translations of the German and/or Dutch articles.^{[citation needed]} Lacking sufficient knowledge and/or time to review the originals, and not really knowing enough about the subject, I did what I could with them but avoided a wholesale rewrite. Daniel Case 05:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can state that there are few sentences that have survived from the time before I started to work on it (May 2005). It might be poor English but none of it comes from the Dutch or German articles. There are many sources of material in English, if I had felt the need to copy them. I have been watching the other featured articles to see what happens. Each time someone, often anonymous, says that they wouldn't have supported it, usually giving no specific examples. I haven't had a chance this morning to review the changes since midnight but I wouldn't be surprised if some badly thought-out sentences have already been added by well-intentioned people. Of course it has imperfections; I challenge anyone to nominate the perfect article. JMcC 08:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could have happened too, I'm sure. I haven't had time to review all the changes today save the vandalism reverts. Daniel Case 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the In Popular Culture section?

I am shocked beyond belief that this article does not contain an In Popular Culture section. It is a firmly established Wikipedia tradition that all articles must end with a long list of cultural trivia, including every time the subject was mentioned in a tv show, video game, garage band song, and so on. Surely gliding must have been mentioned in at least one episode of the Simpsons. Come on now, you all don't want this to be the only Wikipedia article which doesn't link to The Simpsons, do you? --Xyzzyplugh 09:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know your tongue is firmly in your cheek, but don't encourage them. Just to satisfy you gliding has featured in .... Perhaps not. JMcC 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the Thomas Crowne Affair, maybe we could add that in :p The chicken lady 13:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... but why bother? The fact gliding appeared in the original and the remake is a very minor piece of information. In fact apart those films, it is very hard to think of any other instances. JMcC 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating

Just wanted to drop a note-- This is a great article. Congratulations to all who spent time and energy on it. For me, it was a fascinating introduction to a subject to which I had minimal previous exposure. After reading it, I feel both more informed and able to continue pursuing knowledge on my own on this subject-- in other words, basically ideal. Thanks so much. Gcolive 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC) PS-- Xyzzyplugh, >:D[reply]

You're welcome. Daniel Case 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're also welcome from here. JMcC 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK here is some trivia, In world war II some captured british pilots managed to hatch an escape plan that involved building a glider in the attic of their prison. They never made the flight but the plane was constructed. This was reported in Soaring magazine as well as other places.

Also in WW II the Germans used gliders very effectively in freeing Mussolini from his prison on a mountain top. The allies also used gliders to land troops behind enemy lines but it was not successful.

In the United States the soaring movement was started by the Schweitzer brothers of Elmira New York who also manafactured many different types of gliders. One the Schweitzer 2-33A is still used in many clubs. It is a two place trainer.

I believe that the air-force academy starts all their pilots off with glider instruction. For many years they used the Schweitzer 2-33A.

Minden Nevada boasts that soaring flights to 18,000 feet are possible because of the natural conditions there. ( typical tows are 3000 feet).

In competition flights water ballast is frequently used. This added weight increases the speed of the planes. it is released before landing.

One aspect of this sport is the ever present event that a pilot will have to land away from his home airport. This is called landing out' In this event the planes can be disassembled, loaded on special trailers and towed back to the airports. Many planes are stored in their trailers and only assembled on those days when they are to be flown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction re: weak link on tow rope

In every situation I've flown the tow rope has the weak link at the 'glider' end, not the 'tow plane' end. It would ruin your day to have a couple of hundred feet of tow rope come back and, say, wrap around your elevator... With the weak link at the 'glider' end, the tow plane doesn't experience any problems with their operations if a break occurs, considering that they're used to flying with the rope behind them without the glider anyways. Trivia - the 'weak link' is just a simple overhand knot in the rope; this creates weakness in the tow rope so that it will fail at the knot instead of at an unknown location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk)

I think practices vary country by country and so it is not necessary/possible to specify where the link is. It is certainly a formal device in some places and not just a knot. JMcC 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For American pilots, a safety link must be installed at both ends of the rope if its tenstile strength exceeds 200% of the glider's max weight, but to prevent fouling (as you pointed out), the link at the towplane end must be stronger (but no more than 25% stronger) than the glider end. See FAR §91.309 for details. -nbach 08:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US the link ( or the tow rope) also must withstand 50% of the weight of the glider and must break before 200%. Arydberg (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

david john illingworth...?

I came to the gliding page, and saw that the first paragraph had an odd, rambling sentence about mr. illingworth. I went to edit the page to get rid of it, but the edit page didn't have any reference to DJI, and there was no record of it in the history page. Why did that happen?

Someone vandalized it, and it was reverted in four minutes. What probably happened was the revert happened between the time you loaded the page, and the time you hit edit. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia clear of vandalism! --TeaDrinker 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-country distances

I see that my change has been reverted -- fair enough! But I still think that the ordinary reader could come away with the impression that a 5,000 km XC occasionally occurs. After all, "in some cases thousands" implies _at least_ 2,000 km. Couldn't some form of words be found to avoid giving the impression that "many thousands" of km are flown?Ndsg 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to make a compact sentence that says routine flights are just a few hundred, 499 people have done 1,000 and a few people have flown even further. I was happy with your amendment, but to compromise with Dhaluza how about the following? "experienced pilots can fly many hundreds of kilometres before returning to their home airfields and occasionally flights over 1,000 kilometres are made." JMcC 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that strikes me as a definite improvement: I'd be happy to go along with it.

BTW Thanks for all your hard work in producing such an excellent page -- one, moreover, that seems to have impressed people who are not (yet?) in the gliding community.Ndsg 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my downplaying the "thousands" of km in the original wording, I don't want to go to the other extreme! Perhaps it would be worth pointing out, either here or elsewhere in the article, the fact that on Day 1 of the 2005 Euro-championships at Räyskälä in Finland a 1,011 km task was set—& completed by 17 contestants. Ndsg 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly disagree with discounting the length of flights. On the OLC there were about 100 fligts of >1000km and 6 of more than 2000km in 2006, and in 2005 also, so this is actully happening more than just occasionally. I have personally made several 1000 km flights (BTW, the average OLC flight has been almost exactly 300km for many years). So I think the previous wording was technically accurate, and I don't understand why it was changed. Dhaluza 12:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, congratulations on your epic flights! You know, & we know, that long flights very rarely exceed 2,000km—and nothing below 2,000km qualifies as "thousands of kilometres". The average reader might well think that "in some cases thousands", means 3, 4 or 5 thousand.

Surely what we should be trying to do is to give a realistic impression of the normal range of XC flights (rather than record-breaking flights, which are treated separately). The reader should come away with something like the following impression:

typical flights: a few hundred km (200-300km)
exceptional flights: several hundred km (500-750km)
outstanding flights: over 1,000km
record-breaking flights: over 2,000km.

PS Having just returned to this page, I now see that the Finnish comp with its 1,000km+ task was already mentioned. Sorry I didn't notice it before! NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands of kilometres" simply gives the wrong impression IMO. Ndsg 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight computers

In the Maximizing speed subsection of the Cross-country section reference is made to "flight computers". I wondered why there was no link to any article on this important topic—only to discover that there is no such article!

I wonder whether anyone feels like taking on the challenge of writing this article. (No, I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the technical expertise to do so myself!) It has all the makings of an interesting article:

history (starting with the "John Willy" plastic calculator)
flight directors (the early Cambridge instruments)
modern developments, PDAs linked to GPS, open-source programs, etc
theory & practice of final glides

In the meantime, perhaps the reference in the main Gliding article could be expanded slightly. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... & talking of final glides, maybe something about the issues involved in calculating them? Just a thought. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of linking to "mathematics" and "theory": these are both words known to any English-speaking reader of the article (this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary!). OTOH, the word "optimizing", not currently linked, will not be familiar to everyone.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your question on my Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver badge

Call me pedantic, but ... The wording was a bit ambiguous, & seemed to imply that the 50km could be flown in separate flights. I've now made it quite clear what was meant. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weight issues

It isn't mentioned in the SSA FAQ, but it's come to my attention that weight restrictions are a significant barrier to learning how to glide (one source told me that no operation near NYC could train a person over 235 pounds). Could someone knowledgeable provide information on this point? 204.186.59.81 00:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Obese and/or very tall people will not be able to fly gliders. Here is my club's policy. "If you are heavier than 16st 4lb (228lb, 103 kg), you will not be able to fly in our gliders as most gliders have a weight limit of 242 lb (110 kg) for each seat. The pilot’s weight must include the weight of a parachute, so if you weigh more than 103kg or 228lbs then you cannot fly in a glider. People over 6’ 4’’ (193cm) may not be able to fly in our gliders. The lower weight limit is approximately 44kg (7 stone or 98 pounds). The minimum height for pupils is approximately five feet (152 cm)." The reason is that you will get similar answers from most gliding clubs is that most gliders' seats (if not all) are designed to a specification by OSTIV. JMcC 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a medical exam is not required in the United States to be a glider pilot. Arydberg (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK requirement is for a pupil pilot to self-certify their medical condition, but for an examination by one's own doctor to fly solo. Thereafter check-ups are needed at intervals determined by age. JMcC (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winch launches

Might I suggest creating a separate article for winch launches? They vary to a significant extent from auto-launch, I think it merits its own (albeit somewhat short) article. If a sufficient level of detail is provided, there is no reason for it to be a stub. I think the amount of information given is enough to show that there's more to winch launches, but not enough (yet) to become its own article. Not being familiar with winch launches terribly well myself, is there someone out there who knows enough to contribute to this? 64.252.75.102 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are thinking along the lines of the contents of these sites: York Soaring and another brief description, or perhaps you wanted a fuller explanation, see this article. Wikipedia should not be a manual on how to do things rather than an encyclopedia and there is a risk that an article would be seen as going in that direction. In summary keep the wings level, do not climb too steeply too early, do not get too slow and expect the cable to break. JMcC 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (with about winch 1500 launches)[reply]

Not completely what I was thinking... (sorry I wasn't logged in before, I'm 64.252.75.102). I was thinking more of the science and theory behind the winch launch, being the more complated of the launch methods. Although, for what its worth, I found those links very helpful. I was looking more at this site and this one. I agree fully that Wikipedia should not be a how-to kind of site, but I think much of the information in these sites is Encyclopedia-worthy and would show that winch launches may, indeed, require a separate article. I'm more questioning the notability of this type of information, or I would be willing to the article (mind you, I only have aerotows under my belt, so this would not be advisable.) Codharris 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalbourne SS

Why the external link to this specific club? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the link, as I couldn't see any compelling reason to leave it. If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies & replace it! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glider pilot userbox

It would be nice to have a userbox for inclusion on User pages announcing that the user is a glider pilot. I see that there is already such a box at User:UBX/gliderpilot; but the message This pilot doesn't need no stinkin' engine, thank you very much! isn't to everyone's taste. Without being too po-faced about it, I wonder whether we could devise a slightly more sober message: any suggestions (other than the rather lame This user is a glider pilot)? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops—I've just seen the excellent version on JMcC's page. That looks just about right. The reason I'd missed it is that it isn't on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Flying. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply modified the crude version, but didn't publicise it because it is not a template. If anyone knows how to convert the improved glider user-box into a template, this would be appreciated. I think the simple message works best. JMcC (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done To generate the userbox, just include {{User:Ndsg/gliding}} on your User page. There's now a link to it from here as well. Let me know if you want to change the wording! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Maybe we should use a different image from the No stinkin' one ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soaring flights for Bronze

Under Badges the article states that Typically, a bronze badge shows preparation for cross-country flight, including precise landings and a pair of two-hour flights. This isn't the case in the UK, where the requirements are for a pair of half-hour flights (or one-hour flights if aerotowing is used). For the XC Endorsement a one-hour and a two-hour flight are required. Was this a typo, or are the requirements different in countries where there is no XCE? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Article amended to something more vague. JMcC (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fine. BTW There seems to be some confusion between online & printed references in the Badges section. The ref to Free Flight (footnote 43) appears to be to a printed journal; yet it gives an access date—normally used for material on the Web. In fact I see that the article is available online, so the citation should probably be modified to reflect this. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK removed access date, though I did use the on-line vesrion as you surmised. JMcC (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a bore about this—but I think that, rather than removing the access date, it would be more helpful to readers if you gave the link to the online version (ie using the {{cite web}} template, with the access date restored). Saves them a trip to the library! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. JMcC (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important changes proposed to this article

Anyone who has an interest in this article, should be aware that a discussion has started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding. JMcC (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edit to article lead

I genuinely thought the edit[5] was non controversial and matched the scope of the article precisely.

Before I revert it, what exactly is supposed to be 'patently untrue' about it?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to support your assertion. JMcC (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you do a little research before editing a well developed and well referenced article? There is a big difference between what you might think is true and reality. I am not going to point out the error. Instead I would prefer if you did not blunder around hoping that someone else might pick up the pieces. JMcC (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not describe in what way this edit is incorrect, then I cannot be really held responsible for any unintended inaccuracy. We cannot simply take people at face value when they say 'it's wrong, but I refuse to say why' and then reverting back to an edit they made. That's simply indistinguishable from edit warring.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the WP:LEAD guideline says you have to set the context for the article, and WP:GOODDEF says you must define the article's scope. WP:IS NOT says you have to include a definition for the article's scope at the very beginning of the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I make an assertion that there are green cats and fail to support it with any evidence? Is another editor allowed to reverse this assertion? No doubt after three edits this is warring, so after three edits an unsupported is allowed to stand. You are simply replacing something that is factual with something that is unsupported. As I suggested, just do some very basic research in classes of gliders and hang gliders before you try to classify them yourself. Look at primary gliders and the classes of hang gliders. You will find examples in both gliders and hang gliders that are incompatible with your attempted definition. There is more to editing than cut and paste. JMcC (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that this article covers non faired cockpit gliders? I'm not even saying that the article covers all non faired cockpit gliders only that it does not cover non faired cockpit gliders. Please point to any part of the article that disagrees with this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see that I have 'attempted definition' I've simply moved some words to the front of the article, that were already in the article lead.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What the heck is a 'faired cockpit glider?' --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 14:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fully streamlined for extra performance. There's a hatch that you need to open to get in and out.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hatch? It is not a submarine! JMcC (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be unaware that the term hatch is an aeronautics term for a door on an aircraft, particularly in the ceiling or floor. In sailplanes the hatch is generally integrated with and often identified as the canopy; but it's still a hatch.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to photos

As part of the featured article review I have had to replace some of the photos with similar shots but with acceptable copyright permissions. However one of the shots is less than ideal. Does anyone have a photo of a glider being derigged into its trailer in a field? JMcC (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

After making efforts to meet the requirements of the Featured Article review Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1 I have decided that I cannot spend any more time on this. If anyone wants to comply with the latest review points, please do so. I have replaced several photos because of queries about copyright.JMcC (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know who watches this page: "Gliding" has retained its featured article status in the FARC review, however this is not a permanent accolade. It can be reviewed again if it slips below the latest standards. Can we all ensure that all new sections are adequately referenced, better photos are inserted when the become available and all future contributions are rigorously scrutinised? JMcC (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2-place gliders & first female jumper

It is my understanding that 2-place gliders were not built until about 1930. I have a news clipping about my mother being the first woman to parachute from a glider on 11/13/30. Her pilot was Lyman Voepel, owner of the glider, who held the record of 18 loop-loops at the time. Glenn Lane (glennlane1@aol.com). 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:507A:A38A:52DC:3D54 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gliding. 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) 00:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gliding. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=386
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719061119/http://segelkunstflug.mediacluster.de/d/430 to http://segelkunstflug.mediacluster.de/d/430
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012014029/http://www.fai.org/gliding/documents/igc_strategy/ to http://www.fai.org/gliding/documents/igc_strategy/

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) 06:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forced gliding for powered planes

There doesn't seem to be any mention of when powered planes like the Gimli Glider are forced to glide due to engine failure or forgetting to top up. Can anyone help? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 11:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sport of gliding. Its categories include the Category:Air sports but I guess gliding in an airliner isn't a lot of fun. At the top of the article is a link to the disambiguation page Gliding (disambiguation) which contains a link to List of airline flights that required gliding. The article on Gliding flight also contains this link. JMcC (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gliding flight which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Gliding. 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) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gliding. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216024059/http://www.wgc.mb.ca/sac/freeflight/04_01.pdf to http://www.wgc.mb.ca/sac/freeflight/04_01.pdf

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) 01:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gliding. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530023249/http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/CRD%20b.2%20-%20Combined%20Subparts%20+%20Appendices.pdf to http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/CRD%20b.2%20-%20Combined%20Subparts%20+%20Appendices.pdf

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) 18:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gliding. 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) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]