Talk:Sailplane

Archives

/Archive 1

Merge with gliding

The name of the article at gliding suggests that it is a general article on gliding, whereas it is restricted to soaring of sailplanes (whatever you want to call them). I think that the article should be merged with this one, or else renamed to flying sailplanes or soaring or something similar.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose 'Gliding' is the name given to the sport of flying rigid wing gliders by the world governing body for all air sports, Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. 'Hang gliding' and 'paragliding' are the names given by the FAI to these different, though related, sports. There is no generic sport called 'gliding'. Furthermore, extending the article on gliding to include the gliders themselves will cause it to exceed the recommended length. The gliders are a separate subject with many sections. Whole books are written about gliders without describing the sport. By analogy, see scope of yacht versus sailing.JMcC (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree; the yacht vs sailing distinction is exactly analogous, and "gliding" is indeed the official name of the sport of flying sailplanes. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article: So... um precisely what is a sailplane anyway?

It's a glider with rigid, fixed wings. I get that.

OTOH does that mean that the space shuttle is technically a sailplane? How about Radio-controlled glider- I think that probably is a sailplane. Presumably paper aeroplanes aren't because they have flexible wings. And the Gimli glider presumably isn't because it isn't designed to be a good glider. But the Shuttle is a bit of an outlier.

But whatever, I think it's reasonable to limit the scope of this article to just manned sport gliders, but we shouldn't appear to be more general than we are, we can always create a more general article to go at sailplane (general) or something if it's necessary or more probably just rely on wiktionary for the accurate definition of the term.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you do not know what a sailplane is, then you should not be editing this article. It is not just the rigid wings; it is used for recreational soaring. JMcC (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, I found that the people editing Steam engine didn't know what a steam engine was. The people editing Rocket didn't know what a rocket was. The people editing jet engine didn't know what that was, the people editing internal combustion engine didn't know what that was-not in an encyclopedic manner anyway. Encyclopedias nearly always use very general, but usually nevertheless precise definitions for things.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbia encyclopedia seems to define it as "a glider which is built especially for soaring and sustained flight" and does not mention recreation. Presumably a sailplane that was not being used for recreation would still be a sailplane, so I'm not finding your definition accurate. I personally do not believe that people that do not know what an article is about precisely should not be writing for the article. I simply expect editors to contribute positively.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respect the definitions given by the ICAO and use them as a reference in any WP article above other sources.

Gliding - 'Gliding is flying an aeroplane which is without engine power'.
Glider - No definition given but it could be deduced from the above that it would be 'an aeroplane which is without engine power'.
Sailplane - JAA definition:‘Sailplane’ means a heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its fixed lifting surfaces, the free flight of which does not depend on an engine'.

Hope that helps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience legal definitions usually tend to be unreasonably general or unreasonably specific or both. From the law makers point of view they're trying to make sure there's no loopholes, so accuracy is undesirable compared to ensuring everything that should be covered, is, rather than making sure that things that shouldn't be aren't. And the Shuttle isn't their problem anyway, it's exempt of FAA rules. (e.g. it goes supersonic over land, if you tried doing that with Concorde while it was flying you'd be in court.) so making it overbroad and hitting the shuttle is not a problem... for them.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition also implies that any aircraft making a deadstick landing is a sailplane. Nah...- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will have to make your own definitions up and reference them. FWIW my own definition of a glider and sailplane and one that I give to student glider pilots is that a glider simply 'falls with style' like a Waco Hadrian for instance where a sailplane is designed for soaring flight like a Schleicher ASH 25. Granted on the club field 'sailplane' is rarely used (in the UK at least) where 'glider' is the more usual term. 'Sailplane' is used in formal accident reports (I have had to write a few). I also build and fly RC soaring gliders (mentioned earlier) and they are also interestingly rarely called 'sailplanes.' A further conundrum is that the UK sport soaring magazine has always been called 'Sailplane and Gliding', a title that makes me smile, but thinking about it 'Sailplane' covers the aircraft reviews and 'Gliding' covers the articles on 'how to do it' so it is a quite logical title. What I believe JMcC was saying earlier is that it helps enormously to have a good understanding of a subject before making major undiscussed edits, true I can copy edit Nuclear fusion but I wouldn't attempt to add anything technical. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::You have the unusual distinction of being able to fill a talk page on your own.~~ JMcC (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sailplane is a fixed-wing aircraft designed for soaring flight. They are generally unpowered, although some sailplanes ("motorgliders") are fitted with engines that may be used for self-launching and/or for extending their range in "sawtooth" flight (using the engine periodically to regain altitude). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've copied this into the article, I left off the bit about sawtooth flight and I added 'rigid' to fixed-wing to distinguish from flexible wing gliders. We need a good reference.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other fixed-wing gliders simply make controlled descents, and cannot soar. Practically every fixed-wing glider produced over the last century that hasn't been a sailplane has fallen into one of two categories: very basic training gliders ("primary gliders"), and military transport gliders.

I would say that models and toys are beyond the scope of this article; but model gliders that can soar are indeed model sailplanes. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bit clumsy to scope them out (we would have to define them in the definition). It might in my opinion be better to leave them scoped in and then just have a paragraph that main's out to Radio-controlled glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Car doesn't discuss model cars, ship doesn't discuss model ships, and even train doesn't mention model trains. Model vehicles have been treated separately from their full-size counterparts consistently throughout Wikipedia. What's the difficulty in excluding them here? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, rocket does treat them inclusively. Ship as defined in the article is a large vessel so they don't have this problem. Cars are usually defined to be specifically passenger vehicles, again not a problem. Trains they already do cover the small model railways that are used for passenger travel or if they are used for freight of any kind I guess. Sailplanes aren't usually used for transportation nor is there any inherent sizing in the definition. So I'm unclear how this would be introduced, except artificially. I think that I would argue that an RC glider is actually functionally a true sailplane.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) In precisely the same way that the normal understanding of the word "car" implies a passenger-carrying wheeled vehicle and requires the modifier "model " in front of it to indicate otherwise, the normal understanding of the word "sailplane" implies a crewed air vehicle. Sub-scale remotely controlled (or uncontrolled) models are called "model sailplanes" or "model gliders". --Rlandmann (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's pros and cons either way. But I doubt you'll find a definition written anywhere you can cite that specifies that people have to be onboard.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it another way, do you have a reliable source that says that RC gliders are not true sailplanes? Because the definition we have at the moment, seems to say that they are.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) See above. Model sailplanes are sailplanes in the same sense that a radio-controlled model car is a sports car. This argument is now a purely semantic one, and it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone is going to find a source to say that "model sailplanes are sailplanes" (or not) any more than anyone is going to find a source to say that "models cars are cars".

Let's put it another way – do you have a reliable source that describes model sailplanes and sailplanes in the same breath? None of the encyclopedia-type works on aircraft that I own cover model aircraft, and neither of the encyclopedias of sailplanes cover model sailplanes. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I need to under the wikipedia's rules. I just have to point to the definition in the article. Unlike the car definition in the car article which defines the necessity for passengers- which model cars clearly don't possess, the sailplane definition doesn't. I also believe that a helicopter is still a helicopter even if it's a RC helicopter, and a UAV is still a jet aircraft even if it's a UAV jet aircraft.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been through something very similar with "glider". There are, then, at least two senses to this word:

an aircraft with fixed, rigid wings capable of sustained soaring flight, encompassing full-sized aircraft, along with models and toys (I've never actually encountered this sense in actual usage, other than by you)
an aircraft with fixed, rigid wings capable of sustained soaring flight, other than toys and models

Your attempt to rely on purely functional definitions of these machines is at odds with how the word is actually used in English, which consistently qualifies models as such. Until a few years ago, a functional definition would probably have relied on the normal sense of the word including a notion of "person carrying", although in this era of UAVs, that isn't necessarily the case. Nor is the distinction "used for the sport of gliding" useful in a strict sense, since there have been a small number of sailplanes used for various other purposes, primarily research; but also for military applications such as communications relay. The distinction today rests primarily on its use as a model or toy, as well as a notion of size (in the same way that you have distinguised a ship from a model ship).

I suspect that in most countries there would be a point at which you could build a sufficiently large model sailplane to have the aviation authorities require you to register and operate it within the same regulations as any other sailplane (or prevent you from flying it at all). That's likely to be a point that varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is probably not something that many (if any) regulators have had to actually face. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to rely on purely functional definitions of these machines is at odds with how the word is actually used in English Well, you know, the wiktionary is a terminology wiki, and is all about that kind of thing, how a word is actually used in English, it's right down the hall, second door on the left. Enjoy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I don't understand what you mean by that last comment. Could you please explain? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with this discussion is that it is spread over more than one talk page. I have therefore pasted in some comments that I made on glider (aircraft). Wikipedia:Name#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name states that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I hope that this principle will guide our discussions and reduce the case for a "purist" title. Most people would not expect to type in the word 'sailplane' to find the article about gliders. JMcC (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the bout of editing seems to have subsided, we can now take stock of what has been gained and lost. There is a curious situation in which links from [[glider]]s are directed to [[sailplane]] while links from [[gliders]] are directed to glider (aircraft). You can imagine that throughout Wikipedia these slight variations have been used at random. I have therefore been through each in "What links here" to ensure that they at least link to the right article. After some shaky conclusions from the statistics above, I can announce that in reality only a minority of the links from elsewhere refer unpowered aircraft in general. Sailplane used to be re-directed to the common name of 'glider', but now glider is re-directed to the uncommon name of 'sailplane'. The comparison table has moved from hang gliding. It was originally there because there is a blurred line between hang gliders and paragliders. The editors of the hang gliding article will probably want something similar re-instated eventually, whatever we do to this table here. This article also unnecessarily duplicates information about instrumentation and markings giving an impression that these are now fillers to help justify this article's existence. Comparative data about launch and landing can be put into the comparison table. The article glider (aircraft) now has a tautologous name and so it should be moved to something like Unpowered aircraft. JMcC (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on which one of these pages was a consensus reached to move the articles around ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a consensus; User:Wolfkeeper just did it. While radical changes were being made, it was impossible to judge whether the outcome would be beneficial, so it was best to leave it alone until the dust settled. Now the changes have subsided, I posted my evaluation of the net result above. I intend to make the changes that I have proposed above if there is general agreement. The effect of these changes will be to retain the extra article about unpowered aircraft that Wolfkeeper has created, though under a more logical name and without duplicating the glider article. Finally glider will once more be the name of the article that is currently called 'sailplane'. (Wolfkeeper, as might be expected, has objected to this.) JMcC (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the links to glider/sailplane, there were some links which apply elsewhere. These were mainly references to military gliders. In the articles about their use, there is no need to identify them as anything other than gliders. However if someone referred to a glider today, few would think of a Horsa. I have therefore amended these links and they now go to military glider. After that the links are mainly to types of sporting glider, their pilots and places from which they launch. There is no evidence of widespread use of 'glider' in a more general sense. JMcC (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me. I was about to attempt something along the same lines now that the dust has settled, but I'm more than happy with what you're proposing to do. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK This is how I propose to do it. I will back up the three articles to Wordpad: glider, sailplane and glider (aircraft). I will delete the new Glider article, which is currently just a redirect page. I will then undo Glider (aircraft) back to the version 22:47, 8 December 2008 by 71.202.65.243. If this does also restore the name back to 'glider', I will also be revert it to its original name. This will preserve the previous history of the article. Lastly Sailplane will become a redirect page once more. The redirect article for 'Unpowered Aircraft' which now has a wikilink on the Categories of Aircraft will become a jumping off point to the types of gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, rotor kites, the Space Shuttle and military gliders plus the comparison table. If there have been any other unconnected but useful amendments, I will add these to the articles affected. JMcC (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need and RFC on this.

<outdent- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article you propose to revert to: [1], it has a very large number of severe deficiencies.

the definition of glider is general, and is not limited to sailplanes, and fails to define sailplanes
the article states that hang gliders and paragliders are gliders but fails to cover them in even a general way
the article fails to cover launch methods other than tow or winch (i.e. sailplane launch techniques)
the glider design section only covers sailplanes
the classes of glider section only covers sailplanes
the manufacturer of glider sections seems to only cover sailplanes
the Instrumentation and other technical aids section only covers sailplanes
the Glider markings section only covers sailplanes

In short that article is highly inconsistent, even deceptive about what a glider is, and fails to mention or define entire classes of gliders (gliders like the space shuttle that are not sailplanes, hang gliders or paragliders) while you are defacto claiming it to be a general article on gliders and proposing to point all the wikipedias links to it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally you seem to have no workable strategy. That glider == sailplane is not a sustainable position to take in a general work such as the encyclopedia; that definition is not encyclopedic and there are enormous holes in that article that preclude it being in any way adequate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, fundamentally, is the space shuttle a glider or not? If you're arguing that it is not in the wikipedia, that only sailplanes are, because that is the common usage, then I think that the wikipedia is quite frankly going to be a heap of useless junk. If it is a glider, then the definition in the article needs to cover it, and the article needs to cover the definition.

This 'common usage' stuff in MOS is intended for when there are two entirely disjoint definitions, not when there are two definitions with one a superset of the other.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]