Jump to content

Talk:Vertical stabilizer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vertical stabilizer. 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 10:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vertical stabilizer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename to Vertical tail

[edit]

I propose that this article be renamed to Vertical tail. All the books I have at hand (refs 1 & 3-5 in article) specifically refer to the vertical stabilizer (or fin) as being the fixed part of the vertical tail, with the moveable part being the rudder. I know this terminology is a little confusing —the rudder also contributes to stability, and the stabilizer also contributes to control— but this seems to be well-established terminology. I do not see why or how the vertical stabilizer should be treated independently from the vertical tail itself. I look forward to other editors’ input. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: I agree with Ariadacapo. In "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" by H.H.Hurt Jr (1959), p.285 (Chapter 4, STABILITY AND CONTROL, Directional Stability) the complete vertical surface is called the "vertical tail". The moving part of the vertical tail (under the control of the pilot) is called the "rudder". The expression "vertical stabilizer" appears not to be used. Dolphin (t) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article is about the fixed part, so it is correctly named.

"The empennage includes the entire tail group and consists of fixed surfaces, such as the vertical stabilizer and the horizontal stabilizer. The movable surfaces include the rudder, the elevator, and one or more trim tabs."[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohum (talk • contribs)

Oppose: - I agree with @Hohum:, this article is about the fixed vertical surface, the vertical stabilizer, or fin, and not the movable part, the rudder, which is covered at Rudder#Aircraft rudders. The "vertical tail" includes both the fixed and movable parts and would change the scope of this article. I think if you want to move it to that title, than it has to be re-written to include the fin and rudder and then to remove the rudder from Rudder#Aircraft rudders. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in copies of Flight from 1909 to 1934 (roughly 1250 issues), there are 34 instances of "vertical tail" and most of them are part of the phrases "vertical tail fin(s)" or "vertical tail surfaces". There are 169 instances of "vertical fin". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "fin" is far the commonest name for the fixed part, for example we invariably talk of twin-fin tails and not twin-vertical-stabilizer tails. I wonder how many hits you would find on "tail fin". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Most contemporary sources I've seen call the fixed part a "vertical stabilizer". I might have supported if the article covered both the fixed part and rudder. - ZLEA T\C 22:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Hohum and others. 60-to-90+-year-old references shouldn't be used to determine the appropriate modern name of an article. oknazevad (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ U.S. Department of Transportation FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Flight Standards Service (2016), Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge page 6
Could you make that clearer in your rationale, perhaps something like. "I do not see why or how the vertical stabilizer should be treated independently from the vertical tail itself. This proposal includes the addition of the horizontal stabiliser function to the article."? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An aircraft fin and rudder operate interactively to provide their various functions and are occasionally combined as an all-flying surface. Any discussion of their functions inevitably covers both surfaces. Rudder (aeronautics) redirects to a section in an article which is primarily about maritime rudders, which function only for directional control; it makes far more sense for that section to be moved/merged here and the article renamed accordingly. (Of course this article is currently about the whole vertical tail, only the title is confined to just the fixed part, that is fundamentally why this proposal is being made. Yet all the Oppose votes to date are based on the title alone, which I find rather bizarre - did none of you actually read the rationale or the article before voting? I'd suggest this discussion be canned, and a new one started with a more explicit discussion title and rationale, to acknowledge the inclusion of the moving surfaces and rename the article accordingly) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC) [With additions 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)][reply]

COMMENT The major part of this article is the section titled “Function”. It explains the qualities of directional control, stability and trim. It contains the expression “vertical tail” 20 times; but the expression “vertical stabilizer” only once. Directional qualities are aerodynamic features of an aircraft that are determined by the air flowing past the entire part of the aircraft sticking upwards above the top of the fuselage – we are correctly calling this part the vertical tail. The airflow is oblivious of which part of the vertical tail is always fixed and which part is only fixed most of the time. Let’s not delude ourselves that “this article is about the fixed vertical surface, the vertical stabilizer, or fin, and not the movable part,”.
The second sentence in the lead gets it 100% correct: “Its role is to provide control and stability in yaw (also know as directional or weathercock stability).” (Ask yourself “what part of an aircraft gives the pilot the ability to exercise directional control?” Is it the fixed vertical stabilizer? Of course not; neither the pilot nor anyone else can control the fixed vertical stabilizer. That’s why it is called “fixed”.)
An article about the fixed vertical surface, the vertical stabilizer, cannot say anything about directional control, stability and trim. These qualities are determined by the entire vertical surface including the fixed surface, the movable surfaces, and the trim tabs. This article correctly has a lot to say about directional control, stability and trim, and I suggest we don’t remove it, but I do suggest we change the title.
As I have said above, I support the proposal to leave the article substantially as it is, and change the title to “Vertical tail”. Steelpillow has hit the nail on the head. Dolphin (t) 12:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "An article about the fixed vertical surface, the vertical stabilizer, cannot say anything about directional control, stability and trim."
This is patently untrue for stability. The purpose of the vertical stabiliser is specifically to provide stability. Without it, the aircraft would be extremely unstable in yaw.
If the proposal is to change the name and scope of the article, then why not just start a new article and leave this one to be on the subject it's about. (Or, as mentioned earlier, make a more coherent proposal.) (Hohum @) 19:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hohum mischievously avoids commenting on the fact that the large section on Function mentions vertical tail 20 times, but vertical stabiliser only once. Dolphin (t) 22:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF and don't comment on editors. That this article needs improvement is true, however the name and scope is "vertical stabilizer", which there is plenty of sources to provide content from. If people want an article on something else, they can create that article. (Hohum @) 23:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum: The issue you are not answering is that the scope of the current content does include the whole vertical tail, including the rudder and trim surfaces. You are suggesting that this should be drastically cut back here and then recreated again elsewhere. It is more usual on Wikipedia, and a lot more sensible, to move the content to a suitable title. You may then rescue this title from a mere redirect, provided you can find sufficient sources to establish notability of the fixed fin alone, and sufficient material to justify it as a spin-off from the main article on the whole vertical tail. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum: The contribution of the vertical stabilizer to yaw stability cannot be considered without the rudder, and vice-versa. Which source leads you to think otherwise? You mention "plenty of sources", but where are they? Which sources cover the vertical stabilizer without the rudder? Whether it is in the Function section, or in the Configurations section (which consists mostly of unsourced anecdotes), the article already covers "vertical tails", not specifically "vertical stabilizers". --Ariadacapo (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Scope vs content. If the content goes beyond the scope, fix the article. I covered this in "this article needs improvement"
2. Seems like a false dichotomy to ask for sources (or content) that talk about a part of an aircraft that doesn't talk about other parts. (Hohum @) 14:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nonsense. The scope is clear from any aerodynamics text book, only the title is borked.
2. I agree entirely. You are the one asking for such content, others are merely reminding you that you would need reliable sources to back you up. I am afraid that the RS on my bookshelf, such as Clancy's Aerodynamics, supports the case against you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking in circles now. We have both made our points, and are talking past each other. (Hohum @) 14:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But where in any source would you find a chapter, a section, a subsection, even a paragraph (!) that deals specifically with the vertical stabilizer? For example to explain what its functional role is, how large, how strong it should be, what shape it should have. Everywhere I could find, it is the vertical tail that is covered. Again, where are the sources you are referring to above? There are none in the article. --Ariadacapo (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadacapo’s proposal has received Supports from 3 Users: Dolphin51, Steelpillow and BilCat. Let’s count this as 4 voices in favour of changing the title of the article. The proposal has received Opposes from 4 Users: Hohum, AHunt, ZLEA and oknazevad. Let’s count this as 4 voices opposed to the proposed change. GraemeLeggett made a comment but did not state support or opposition.

I have made a rough count of the words written in favour of, and opposed to, the proposal. The 4 voices in favour of the proposal account for about 1,109 words. The 4 voices opposed to the proposal account for about 406 words. (I have not counted the words by GraemeLeggett or the words used in signature blocks.) My conclusion from these numbers is that the 4 Users in favour of the proposal have attempted more comprehensive statements of their respective positions, and have argued their cases with greater determination, than the 4 Users opposed to the proposal.

There has been no addition to the discussion for almost 48 hours so perhaps we have almost reached a logical end-point. The most recent events of relevance appear to be that Hohum wrote “the name and scope is "vertical stabilizer", which there is plenty of sources to provide content from.” Ariadacapo replied, writing “where are the sources you are referring to above? There are none in the article.”

In view of all the above, I believe we have reached a point where we can thank Ariadacapo for putting this proposal before us and asking for our comments; and invite him to go ahead and change the title of the article as suggested in his proposal. Dolphin (t) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Strength of source and argument counts over the amount of verbiage used in expressing the argument. Also 1) where the not-voting is close then the outcome is no consensus and 2) if anything I say leave it at current name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually from the arguments made I would have concluded "no consensus to move". I don't think it is fair to discount editors who make more concise, succinct and less wordy arguments as being unconvincing. However, as I stated, I am not opposed to it being moved, as long as it incorporates the text on the rudder from Rudder#Aircraft_rudders and adds a {{Main|}} template to Rudder. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like GraemeLeggett and Ahunt, I don’t think there is a clear consensus at all. However, I fail to see what kind of article the proponents of leaving the title intact have in mind. If we take the section "Function" (and the section "Configurations" too?) and move it to a new article called "Vertical tail", what will be left here? What references are left to actually write about "Vertical stabilizer"? Pictures of aircraft tails? It sounds like trying to write an article about "Airplane-wing-without-the-flaps-and-ailerons". --Ariadacapo (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the Oppose arguments are twofold. One is that the article does not address the movable surfaces. This is very visibly wrong - as has been pointed out several times, its content weighs heavily in that direction. I can only assume that several of my good friends here did not bother to actually read it before voting, and did not bother to follow the ensuing discussion afterwards. The second argument is that the content should be edited down to fit the title, but only one editor has actually argued for that, while several have argued against. Since these decisions are not beauty contests but are expected to be determined on the quality of the arguments put, I agree entirely with Dolphin51, and would go along with the conditions proposed by Ahunt. However this whole straw poll has been such a dog's breakfast that, before sanity can prevail, I fear it will have to be kindly put to sleep and a more structured RfM undertaken. That is no strong criticism of anybody here, it is a fairly typical outcome of straw polls. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ariadacapo and Steelpillow make some good points. While thinking about their good points I discovered that Wikipedia does not have an article on the Horizontal stabilizer – the blue link is merely a redirect to our major article titled “Tailplane”. Click on the blue link to see for yourself. Dolphin (t) 21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up this discussion, I summarize it as no consensus to rename the current article. Accordingly, in the coming days, I will move the section "Function" and other bits to a new article titled "Vertical tail". Thank you all for your participation. --Ariadacapo (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a mistake. The edit history of the material to be moved needs to be preserved. Since this is the vast majority of the article, the sensible thing is to move the whole thing across - which carries the edit history with it - and just keep the fin bits here. Simply as a procedural issue, we need to execute a page move as a part of that process. The straw poll we just took gives no mandate for either approach, we need a proper RfM for that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfM now raised, see below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steelpillow said: "...and just keep the fin bits here."

Indeed, as the article is about the fin, it should be entitled fin - aeroplane I had been referring to it as the 'tail fin' but that is incorrect, it is simply the 'fin'.

pmailkeey 2021:11:22:17:40 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.0.87 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There are valid concerns about the scope of this and related articles, as well as about British/American terminology in the field, but this is not something that can be rectified by a simple page move. No such user (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical stabilizer → Vertical tail – The subject of this article's present content is principally the whole vertical tail, which includes not only the stabilizer but also the rudder and any trim tabs. The straw poll and discussion immediately preceding this RfM highlight this, and also cite RS to the effect that discussions in textbooks invariably focus on the whole assembly, in just this way. Our Title policy at WP:CRITERIA requires that The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. The easiest and best way to achieve this is to move the article as proposed. An alternative solution, to cut the material on the tail in general and paste it into a new article, would lose that material's edit history. Since it comprises the vast majority of this article, and would leave only a small and unsourced stub behind, leaving the edit history too would be quite the wrong solution. Instead, this article should simply be renamed to reflect its actual content. Whether or not a short article focusing exclusively on the vertical stabilizer should be recreated, will then be subject to the usual policies and guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the parent article for this is empennage which covers all the bits sticking out of the back end of an aircraft and how they are arranged. whatever content and (name thereof)is in this article should be considered in the light of what content is already in empennage and what is absent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - While the lede seems to indicate that the article covers only the vertical stabilizer, some parts of the body are written as if it also covers the rudder. To me, this inconsistency is a bigger problem worthy of another discussion, but for now I will support a move. - ZLEA T\C 21:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The oppose comments below make strong points. "Vertical stabilizer" is the common name. - ZLEA T\C 23:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Wikipedia does not have an article on the horizontal stabilizer, only a redirect to Tailplane. It is arguable that each fixed surface (stabilizer) is not sufficiently Notable to warrant its own article. Despite claims that numerous reliable sources exist for an article dedicated to the vertical stabilizer, no such source has been identified other than a dictionary-style FAA Handbook which goes a short way to distinguishing between the names given to the fixed and movable parts of the empennage. Dolphin (t) 23:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The vertical stabiliser includes the rudder and trim tabs, it is not s separate part of the empennage to those components. The NASA page Airplane Parts and Function contains the following: the hinged part of the vertical stabilizer is called the rudder. - Nick Thorne talk 00:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The NASA website mentioned by Nick Thorne is ambiguous on this point. It also says “The tail usually has ... a fixed vertical piece, called the vertical stabilizer.” (Italicisation of fixed is my emphasis.) These NASA websites are not particularly reliable sources - they cater for newcomers to the subject, and err on the side of simplicity. Dolphin (t) 00:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "stabiliser" is a clearer description than "tail" since it also indicates the functionality. But I also agree that there's more work to do than this. In fact I wouldn't oppose complete removal of the articles about the various components of the empennage: better one good complete comprehensive article than a handful of partial overlaps, complementarity, and the unavoidable inconsistencies between them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As pointed out, the article covers both the fixed and moving portions of the vertical tail, so that's the natural title. However, I Stongly Oppose another move discussion soon after this one is closed if it results in another draw. We should have let this one be for a couple of months anyway. BilCat (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the current article is edited to explain what a vertical tail is exactly then nothing needs to be moved (a redirect is already in place). Vertical tail is an uncommon term in UK usage and is rarely (if ever) used by training schools, pilots and engineers. The term describes the fin/vertical stab and rudder as one surface for the purpose of area calculations related to yaw stability. Can be cited to Jane's/Bill Gunston if necessary. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if the intention is to combine the subjects on the fixed and movable portions into one article then it should be here at Vertical stabilizer and not Vertical tail as per WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Common usage is vertical stabiliser. "Tail" refers to the entire rear section. Does anybody use the term "vertical tail" to refer to just the vertical section of the tail?  Stepho  talk  11:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You should compare "vertical stabilizer" to the proposed "vertical tail", not your own irrelevant straw suggestion. Yes, the phrase "vertical tail" is extremely common. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, "vertical tail" may be more common than I thought - although I haven't come across it often in 40 years of extensive reading on the subject (including UK and US sources). Whereas "vertical stabilizer" is the one of the more common terms for it that I do come across.
    What irrelevant proposal? I don't remember making any proposal, let alone an irrelevant one. By the way, dismissing another editor's comments as irrelevant isn't likely to help you convince them of your own proposal.  Stepho  talk  00:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the OP, it is clear to me that there is no consensus for change. Good points have been made on both sides (never mind any bad ones). I have no objection to this RfM being closed accordingly. I also agree with the sentiment that this issue should not be revisited for a good while, and I would hope that would only be as part of a general revisit to the various articles on the bits that stick out the back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that there is no consensus for change, which is a pity because there doesn't appear to be much consensus among those who advocate retaining the status quo - some believe the vertical stabilizer consists of the whole airfoil including the rudder and trim tab; while the others believe the vertical stabilizer is fixed to the fuselage and excludes the rudder and trim tab.
It is also a pity that, despite this article having existed at Wikipedia for over 16 years, it appears there is not one cited source that identifies the vertical stabilizer. (The cited sources identify the vertical tail.) Nimbus227 has offered Jane's All The World's Aircraft and/or Bill Gunston as a source. Any such offer is appreciated, especially if it focuses on yaw stability, so it would be useful if Nimbus could insert the appropriate details as an inline citation. Dolphin (t) 11:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gunston defines vertical stabilizer as the US term for fin on the same page. This article's scope as set out in the lead is incorrect and has been since it was created in 2005, there should be no mention of control, control surfaces or trim tabs apart from a passing mention of all-moving fins and the fact that rudders are usually attached. We have tailplane and elevator (aeronautics) but we have no rudder (aeronautics) article (it's just a redirect to material that has been moved here recently). Our set of articles on aircraft control and stability should be reviewed and rationalised to avoid overlap by using summary style.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with eswiki

[edit]

Why does this link to https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superficies_estabilizadoras&redirect=no instead of https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estabilizador_vertical ? It works one way and not the other. What's happening? this is extremely frustrating. Santiago Arderíus (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get something on inverted stabilizers/V-tails?

[edit]

A few aircraft, like the MQ-1 Predator, have their stabilizers below the fuselage instead of above it, would be great if we could get a mention of that, as well as potential advantages and disadvantages of that configuration? There's a brief mention of it on the V-tail page, but it doesn't really go into the why's. Fisk0 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vertical_stabilizer&oldid=1199811174"