Talk:Model aircraft

message: I belive there is a missing scope for model aircraft:
it left the pure hobby long ago, as the discussion below indicates.
For the german entry the scope was extended to scientific and military use, e.g. military drones, and simulation models.
Those historic model aircrafts referenced below would be (scientific) simulation models for study of airodynamics or planned manned aircrafts.
regards  PeterD
----
First line of first page is not true model aircraft have been around since the Phaeroes of ancient Egypt. Even in 1902 Langley flew a steam powered aerodrome across the Patomac river, aeromodelling has been around a long time and it is man who cannot fly.
Carlo Godel
Thanks Carlo. I am working on including a link that will pre-date Langly.
Chendrickson 01:06 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
Well, the article was first written as Model Airplane. But if aircraft as a whole are to be included, I guess the chane needs to be done.
Antonio Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Martin
----
I deleted:
"The Hobby is not the most popular among pilots, former pilots, or aviation afficianados. Absolutely not! However, the hobby is also available to those groups of people, and it has been widely popular among babies since its beginning. 
It is also becoming increasingly popular among sexy women.
Aircraft catwalk models come in a wide array of types and sizes.  
" GRAHAMUK 10:37, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section on static models states that the company Ertl is no longer in business.  This is incorrect.  Ertl is still very much alive, and producing all sorts of models. You can find new Ertl models at Texaco Collectibles and you can visit cricut cards to find Ertl
fast brite lens restorer
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.96.65.14 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ertl

message: It should be noted that fuel for model glow engines is methanol-based. Nitromethane is added as a performance enhancer. Also, nitromethane is really not very volatile, being much less so than methanol. These days, synthetic oils are the lubricants of choice for most users.
HTH,
Steve S
:So fix the article aready! ;-) Graham 23:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical correction 

message: I don't think whether they are scale has much to do with which power source they use.
--
You're right.  I think choice of powerplant only makes a difference to the ambitious and advanced modeller -- the most-authentic scale-models of jet-powereed military jets (F-14, F-15, F-16, , etc.) use ducted-fans or turbines.
The article could probably go into more detail about model-types and classification.  Model aircraft can be classified in many different ways.  Control-type is one way -- that's already in the article!  Then we also have "application" oriented classifications: "sport", "scale", "trainer" (there're probably more -- should park-flyers and  '3D-flyers' count as separate categories?)  
Trainers emphasize durability and stability (with the idea that a beginner will crash more often than not), sacrificing top-speed and manueverability.  The structure of trainers often accomodate low-speed, low-angle crashes (rubber-band attached wings, rear-mounted propeller, etc.)  "Sport" aircraft emphasize aerobatics (loops, rolls, turns, speed), which implies they are less "self-stabilizing" than trainers.  "Scale" model, in the above classification, refers to model aircraft which are facsimiles (reduced size) of full-size aircraft.  Since scale-models emphasize the replication of an actual aicraft's appearance (and form), scales handle very different from trainers and sports.  Quite simply, aerodynamic behavior does NOT scale, and scale-models often suffer from control and stability challenges not apparent with sport models.  (And it has to be said, a 1/8 scale-model won't fly anything like the full-size example!)
The flight behavior does not scale, because of the Reynolds and mach numbers.  Maybe I'll try to add something aout that.
--David R. Ingham 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  scale 

message: I am the one who said it was steam, but I am not so sure now.  Perhaps Sir George Cayley used bent wood or stretched leather?
--David R. Ingham 01:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit when I read the steam mention my eyebrows went up a notch - I never heard of a practical steam-powered aircraft, and I doubt that it could work. Steam engines are at their very best, just 10% efficient, and they require water, which is very heavy, as well as the fuel... However I left it in because it would only take one example to prove me wrong, and I can't say with absolute certainty that nobody ever made it work. I daresay there were plenty of plans and proposals, but did anyone make it really work? Graham 12:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  earliest airplane power 

message: Model aircraft and Radio controlled airplane. Maybe we should use one term to avoid confusion? --Phatmonkey 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft/airplane 

message: Nice article.  I think there is much more to be said about static models, especially with regard to techniques for brush painting, Airbrush, construction, applying decals, weathering and super-detailing.
:No, WP is an encyclopedia, not an instructional site. Such material would soon be removed - Adrian Pingstone 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, that is not to say that such items have no place here.  It could do with a part like the "Construction" section for flying models.  Most of the techniques used are very different so it would not be redundant.  As it is, the article is very flying model heavy.  AviatonIsLife 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on static modelling techniques? 

message: In the control line section tit says the planes are flown "anti-clockwise" at least in America we say counter-clockwise. Unless it is different elsewhere I think it should be changed.
Foil Fencer 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Anti-clockwise in proper (i.e. not American) English ;-).AviatonIsLife 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Clockwise? 

message: Does anyone have any thoughts on splitting the page into two down the lines of Flying/non-flying?  It seems the page has become unwieldy and flying model heavy.  I suggest splitting into two, "Static Model Aircraft" and "Flying Model Aircraft".  The latter may need a bit of integration, with this current page retained as a link to both of them.  Opinions? AviatonIsLife 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should be split. The two hobbies are vastly different. Static models usually focus on accuracy (historical and manufactured appearance) and attention to detail. Flying models are more of an engineering/designing hobby. For instance most, if not all, static models are models of real-life aircraft. Many flying models do replicate actual aircraft, but it seems that a lot of them are designed just for flying (that is that they don't resemble any real-world aircraft). -NatureBoyMD 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, I have adjusted the definition accordingly. Thank you for your patience. 31.4.242.189 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: This description of rubber power seems to be based on an over-simplified physical model of the model.  Looking at a wound rubber motor, one sees knots and sometimes knots of knots, so things are more complicated than for a bent spring.  I am willing to agree that it becomes exponential near the end of the run, but it appears more like constant early on.
Bold texthow old is the glider when was it build who build it who helped  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.150.76 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "exponential reduction" 

message: I came across this article by accident. It seems at times like a enthusiasts' convention and so is in need of a clean up. As a generalised article on model aircraft, it has too much detail on specific areas. For example there is a whole paragraph on the Jaguar Wakefield aircraft without saying why this one aircraft requires such a detailed description in a general article. The most popular entry level models are described like a consumer guide and rules of team racing are also are discussed in great detail. Ducted fans get mentioned twice. JMcC (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Maxchillin (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeable, it has seemed a little forced to have the two different hobbies in a single article.  I don't know how best to title the articles, the terms used overlap considerably.  In honor of my local shop, disambiguate with "(left side)" and "(right side)". :-) Stan (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Model aircraft (flying) and Model aircraft (static), with Model aircraft disambiguating the two? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better than nothing - "static" I'm not fond of because no actual human says "static".  Magazines and such tend to say "scale modelling" for the non-flying types, notwithstanding that there are flying models that are also to scale. Stan (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "display" instead of "static"? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody say that in real life either? :-)  It would work to have model aircraft (scale) or scale model aircraft and model aircraft (flying), and simply have a note at the top of the scale article mentioning that some flying models are to scale, but that this article focuses on static models. Stan (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the hobbies! 

message: ARF models ready to fly in under four hours?  Certainly not true currently, takes considerably more time investment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.162.36 (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARF 

message: An image used in this article, File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_aircraft#Flying_models_for_sport_(Aeromodeling) says:
:There are also models of birds, bats and flying dinosaurs ...
Presumably "flying dinosaurs" should be changed to "pterosaurs" here, but since I don't know anything about model aircraft that's just a guess.
-  2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "flying dinosaurs" 

message: we have a red link Flight model. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight model? 

message: The lead currently states that an aircraft model is an "aircraft". However, Wikipedia defines an aircraft as " a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air." Many aircraft models do not fly (and are not intended for flying). I have therefore amended the introduction as follows. If anyone objects, please discuss it here, not simply revert, please: 31.4.242.212 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of "aircraft" and "model aircraft"