Talk:Unpowered aircraft

message: The text says that the glide ratio of the space shuttle is 1:1, but I thought it was 4:1. Could someone more knowledgeable say anything about this?
-- di92jn
NASA's web site gives 18-20 degrees.  If my sums are right that is 3:1. Article amended JMcC 11:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glide angle depends on Mach number. Hypersonic, it's about 1:1. At landing it's about 4:1.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Space Shuttle

message: It seems to me that the subject matter is listed incorrectly under Gliding rather than Soaring.  The opening sentences aptly make the distinction between Gliding and Soaring and then the rest of the article is about Soaring. WPElliott 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The world governing body, Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, calls it 'gliding' so I think that is the definitive name and no change seems likely. JMcC 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes sense, thanks WPElliott 15:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right name?

message: My son has been on this site doing homework about inventors. The problem that he seems to be coming across is well reflected right here. Under the category of inventors, it states that Otto Lilienthal is the inventor of the air glider. When you click on "air glider" by his name, you get a COMPLETELY different answer. Can someone help here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.7.141 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of an "air glider".  The term "glider" is used to describe unpowered aircraft and so the word "air" is superfluous. The article on First flying machine gives a useful list of people who were crazy enough to launch themselves into the air without first understanding aerodynamics. I am not sure that they were inventors, perhaps merely madmen. There is a blurred line between just plummeting less quickly and genuinely controlled flight.  The latter needs an understanding of the basics of aerodynamics. Perhaps the Turk, who is listed as one of Turkey's great achievers by another Turk, also achieved controlled flight, but the first person who is recorded as having applied scientific method to the problem of heavier-than-air flight was George Cayley. I think that gives him the right to be called the inventor and he has been called the "father of flight". Cayley's coachman certainly flew his glider and two replicas of his glider have been flown in the recent past to show the practicality of the design. Furthermore Otto Lillienthal knew of Cayley's work and based his designs on it. However he also made great advances and many flights, and so was one of the people who in turn inspired the Wright Brothers. As with many inventions, the answer is not quite so simple as you might think.  Penicillin and steam engines are other examples. The French even dispute that the Wright Brothers were the first with powered flight. JMcC (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. Any flight you walk away from is a good flight ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: We need to embrace the controversy, and describe who says what about who rather than take sides.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor of the air glider. 

message: Your section on instrumentation should also include the Yaw String.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. The caption to the picture refers to the yaw string, which is linked to an article about turn & slip. I think that is sufficient and it keeps the article reasonably compact. JMcC (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the suggestion. It is impractical to list every type of glider in this article.  However there is a link to List of gliders which does contain the redoubtable 2-33 and a link to its article. JMcC (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yaw string

message: * Space_Shuttle has been viewed 97713 times in 200811. 
* gimli_glider has been viewed 17998 times in 200811. 
* Glider has been viewed 17255 times in 200811. 
* Paper_plane has been viewed 11528 times in 200811. 
* Gliding has been viewed 9202 times in 200811
* Hang_glider has been viewed 3848 times in 200811
* Paraglider has been viewed 1468 times in 200811
FWIW articles on non soaring gliders seem to be quite popular both individually as well as in aggregate.
- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of glider articles 

message: This article currently takes WP:LEAD, tears it into shreds and then stamps on the remains.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LEAD 

message: There is no scope for this article. It used to have one, and one that was referenced, but that has been deleted. Why?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: The article is a mess, filled with unsupported subjective conditionals.   Rather than litter it with fact tags, I suggest we work to improve its encyclopedic quality.   Particularly, the space dedicated to arbitrating differences between sail planes and all other gliders is of little merit.Mavigogun (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer 'under development' but all assistance will be gratefully received. The article has only just be created so there will be much scope. I have encountered much confusion between gliders, hang gliders and paragliders, so if the article is about all three, some sort of comparison seems essential. I would like the full list of weasel words; I am prone to using them.  JMcC (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a go at the lead section to try and explain the different types and tried to remove emphasis on sport gliders and sailplanes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note I removed the bit about the number of glider pilots as it would be more appropriate to the Gliding article not an overview of unpowered aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that this article is about the subject that dare not speak its name, but apparently some subgroup of editors here have unilaterally decided that an English word is only allowed one meaning in English and It Has Been Decided What It Is (tm).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Funny that, the wikipedia is supposed to be about popular/common concepts, not words, and doesn't usually define words in a single way. I also wasn't aware that Unpowered Aircraft was the most recognised, popular general term for whatsisname.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfkeeper if you have a problem then you need to make clear points about what that is we are not mindreaders. Also note that article building is consensus nobody makes unilaterral decisions that is not the way it works. So constructive comment would be helpful. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no consensus, I just see cartel that just does whatever the hell it wants. Apparently it takes two to revert a template to ensure that it duplicates the links to the same articles enough times in every major aircraft article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no such thing as a consensus in the aviation articles. We have too few experts and too many opinionated know-it-alls. While I don't quite consider myself to be an expert, I at least have enough common sense to avoid making huge edits to an article without any discussion, which is what happened here. In my time in aviation, I have never heard anyone refer to a glider as an "unpowered aircraft", though the term may be technically correct. By that logic a kite is also an unpowered aircraft, but I don't think it really belongs in the same article as sailplanes or hang-gliders. So yes, some consensus would be nice when it comes to organizing and separating articles. Shreditor (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even correct that gliders are unpowered aircraft. Quite a lot are powered over some or even all of their flight, the term glider is more about the form of the vehicle, rather than whether it is powered or not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess 

message: At Talk:Glider#Proposal_to_move_this_article_to_somewhere_else.2C_and_move_unpowered_aircraft_here is a discussion to establish the consensus position as to whether glider should be moved away to somewhere like sailplane and this article moved to glider. If you have a comment please contribute there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of move of this article to [[glider]] 

message: The Largest section in this article is named...?  'Comparison of types of gliders'.   Why?   Because it is accurate and sensible.   'Comparison of types of unpowered aircraft' would cast a broader net than intended- including errant leaves and flying squirrels and jet passenger aircraft that ran out of gas.   The article is about gliders but is names something else.   Why?Mavigogun (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right and thank you for pointing it out.  I had missed that one in all the changes when I copied it back with this heading from the misnamed glider article. The heading has now been corrected. JMcC (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not as if I am suppressing a deep instinct to call all unpowered aircraft 'gliders'. I renamed it because it was inconsistent with the title of the article. I should have read the section more carefully before copying it, because I would have spotted it that it used the cladistic naming convention that now seems to have been discarded. JMcC (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting (of course) that the name of the article is broken.   The point was clear; taking the above as an indicator of a typo is disingenuous.   This is typical of the lack of dialog that has taken place during this edit conflict- people talk at each other, not with each other, using the words of peers to bracket their own pontification.   The phrasing was natural, accurate, and succinct; the pretext of changing the heading so as no to conflict with the article title is specious, at best.   The only conflict it posed was a political one in regard to the naming controversy.--Mavigogun (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article name is pretty bad. To me the name of the article is secondary to the scope though, since the article name is relatively easy to change, and once we have the scope right, it will be less arguable anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The primary concern was to get the names of the individual types right. The names we give to the various groupings is secondary and almost inevitably artificial. Since this article is about categorisation, I used the name for this group of aircraft that was in the category box. I am sure everyone would like to see the suggestions for a better name, though please bear in mind that the word 'glider' is already used elsewhere. cf cat. JMcC (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that in English and even the wikipedia(!) words have different meanings in different circumstances, even slightly different ones, it's simply not possible to define a word like 'glider' in a single way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Wolfkeeper makes a good point about the need to agree the scope, ie not just what the article is about but what it is for. The article has to describe the common features of aircraft ranging from a 200,000 euro 850kg mass of carbon fibre, electronics and water to a man hanging from a parachute. They do share some ancient DNA, mainly governed by the FAI/national associations/aviation authorities, and use rising air, but after that the article will be mainly about differences and so should probably be fairly short. Anything longer will start duplicating the articles about the individual types. JMcC (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No, you don't have to if it's a descriptive title, which this seems to be; see Wikipedia:BOLDTITLE- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If I'm understanding the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy correctly, then this article should be moved to glider and expanded to include gliding mammals and cover all the (more or less synonymous) definitions of the term 'glider' (the ones involving flying). The article currently at glider in principle should be merged, but in practice I suspect it wouldn't fit, and so we would probably need to move it and refer out to it as a main- it might be reasonable to move it to glider (aircraft). But we'll see what others think, whether my interpretation is judged to be correct, and what the consensus is to do about it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration of Misnaming Convention

message: I suggest that all comments on this proposal are made on the Talk:Glider page.  JMcC (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the merger proposal

message: What is, or could be, said here that is not already said in Aircraft#Unpowered and in the articles it links to at Glider, Balloon and Kite? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the vaule of this article?