Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft/Archive 1

There are two images of a 747 taking off. One is Image:Air new zealand 747-400.jpg

Then there is onother one that is the mirror image of the first one, with the inscription "Air New Zealand" manipulated such that it looks right. Note that the landscape in the background is also mirrored, so that the imagte has clearly been manipulated. I guess somebody liked to make a joke here.

File:Air new zealand 747-400-espelhado.jpg

The original image was uploaded June 2, 2004 by User:JazzNZThe manipulated image was uploaded much later, on July 20, 2005 by User:FML

The second one is labeled

• This file or image is redundant to Image:Air new zealand 747-400.jpg

I would suggest not to use an image that is labeled redundand because it will be deleted some day. Replacing dedundand images is routine maintenance.

Also it is said that:

• "espelhado" seems to be esperanto for mirrored image. Now we need to know if this is redundant or if it is needed like this?! --Paddy 18:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "espelhado" is Portuguese and means mirrored. Andreas 18:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• • A better explanation would have helped. Also "redundand" is NOT listed as an article in wiktionary or wikipedia. "dedundand" isn't in wiktionary either, it won't even come up on google. PLEASE use the English language, which is the language this article is in on explanations, and make them more complete to begin with to avoid confusion. Thanks! Zotel - the Stub Maker 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the policies regarding redundant images in commons in Commons:Village_pump/Deleting_of_images#General_discussion_on_policy_of_redundant_image, and a category with all images labelled "redundant" at Commons:Category:Redundant. Sorry for the typographical error (dedundand should be redundant). Andreas 14:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. I've had my share of those for sure... =) I got confused with the edits, and the typo and all that, I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on... Thanks for fixing it anyhow, I didn't even think of trying to translate the image desc's from portugese, I had assumed since it was a featured article (at least I think thats where I got it) there wouldn't be problems with it. Ahh oversight, I know you well. Now stay out of my mirror. ;) Zotel - the Stub Maker 19:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a discrepency between the 'Flight (lift)' page and the 'Main article: Lift (force)'. Flight (lift) section says "When air passes over the wing, it is forced to pass underneath or over top of it. The length of the wing is larger on the top portion, so according to laws of aerodynamics, the air flow becomes faster, to compensate the larger distance to be travelled. This significantly diminishes the pressure of air on the wing; the difference of pressure under and over the wings creates the necessary lift for flight."Then, the 'Main article: Lift (force)' says: "Despite the fact that this explanation is probably the most common of all, it must be made clear that it is utterly false."Can these be reconciled?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.184.10 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone help me with the electronics of the plane? Specifically, i am looking for the technical name of the floor lights that are typical of commercial planes. If anyone knows suppliers of such item, please let me know as well. Many thanks Dragonlord kfb 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

According to freepatentsonline, the patent for the floor lights is "Emergency egress illuminator and marker light strip". "Emergency floor lighting strips" appears to be the common term used on several airline websites. For a supplier, take a look at Honeywell Aerospace Electronics - Lighting and Electronics. Reader Keith 02:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Following the model of the German site, why not turn the Airplane article from a redirect into a page that outlines the different types, and then directs to the main articles, which would be rotary, fixed, etc.

The OED defn of aeroplane is:"A heavier-than-air flying-machine supported by such planes or wings and mechanically driven."

--Mmx1 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know a tool that will do mass translation? Google stops 20% of the way through and babelfish breaks on it. I know the subject well enough to rewrite any pieces, but I want to peruse it for guidance on scope and organization. --Mmx1 03:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I used babelfish translating most of the material in this article from the Portugese version, with simple cut and paste. I mucked up a fair amount of wording, but I got probably 90% plus of what I wanted that way... Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to be a pain but in this wiki, it is (surely) important to distinguish between an aircraft and an airplane or aeroplane. An aeroplane (my pref., I'm British) is [1] powered, and [2] heavier than air, and [3] fixed wing, and [4] not rotary wing. This therefore excludes gliders, airships, helicopters, and gyrodynes. The term aircraft would include all four.

I can agree that some information about gliders would be appropriate in the Fixed-Wing wiki, because point [1] is not relevant, but I think points [2] to [4] are essential if we want to keep this wiki rigorous.

OrangUtanUK 7-June-2006 16:06 utc

Hi, OrangUtanUK - please see the message I left on your talk page. "Aircraft" is just fine - this has been the consensus on this page for quite a while, I believe. Let's keep Wikipedia international, without bias towards either side of the Atlantic, eh? :) EuroSong ^talk 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi back ! Unfortunately, aircraft is not the international form of the word, it's a generic term that also includes gliders, hot air balloons, helicopters, autogyros, gyrodynes, the Space Shuttle, and Harry Potter's broomstick. I strongly believe we must be exact in our terminology. This isn't about spelling. :o) OrangUtanUK 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for wikipedia version 0.5. The topic is very important but I failed it because of having no references. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, fixed wing aircraft is better, because it separates types of aircraft that either have no wings, or have wing that move, i.e. a helicopter (a helicopter rotors really are wings they just move in cirles for lift)that is all— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.145.209 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This section needs some serious help. For starters, it needs some factual citations for its claims, especially in light of claims that disagree with the Nall Report (which, although targeted primarily at GA, is reflective of aviation as a whole). For instance, adverse weather is not the third-largest cause of aircraft accidents. Weather does not simply "happen" to airplanes; the pilots choose (poorly) to put themselves into situations where weather presents a hazard, or the pilot may fail to use proper technique in dealing with the otherwise benign weather conditions (e.g., flying an instrument approach procedure incorrectly). Also, the section cites "human error" as being the biggest cause and goes on to define this as either pilot or controller error. The number of controller error-related accidents each year is miniscule compared to the number of accidents overall and compared to the number of accidents caused by pilot error. It seems to me this phrasing puts a disproportionate share of the blame on controllers.

I think the whole section could stand a rewrite, but even some simple re-phrasing would help matters.--chris.lawson 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think downbursts are a common source of crashes on takeoff and landing if I recall correctly, and they are notoriously hard to predict or track, as I recall. From what, probably Discover or History channels. So that would be at least one instance where it is not reckless pilot choice, plus add in statistical comparison of "risky weather" vs actual crashes and probably the percentage is so low it isn't considered risky? If I knew good aviation sources I would look it up, but I don't want to just google it from Lord knows where... Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The conditions conducive to microburst formation are not such that a prudent pilot would simply go flying and be caught by surprise. See microburst for more on that particular phenomenon. Accidents due to microbursts are extremely rare; the vast majority of weather-related accidents are CFIT or in-flight breakup due to overstressing the airframe (typically caused by penetration of weather the plane has no business penetrating in the first place, or the pilot's failure to recognise something like a "graveyard spiral" until it's far too late).--chris.lawson 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say so, like I said its a vauge recollection from long ago. If you can source things, be bold by all means and pop it in there. That's what I did when I comepletely re-wrote the article last year... =) Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How many planes crash in a year in percentage?Hengyu 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the safety section should be split in half, putting all the safety measures and statistics in one topic, and putting all the crash statistics in another topic. They're similar but a user that goes on wikipedia before a flight in order to check the safety of an airplane probably wont be thrilled at seeing the crash statistics right next to it. Who are we to shove this information down their throat? Plus, if we made a seporate section for crashs we could include famous crashes in with it if it's too small.

Aren't there several planes faster than the Mig listed in the article as "fastest", it only goes mach2.7 or so.Hopquick 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this article simply called "plane"? —Ruud 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a look at plane? The aviation sense is by no means the only meaning. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure it can be moved to plane (disambiguation). —Ruud 01:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Can you conclusively demonstrate that the aviation sense is predominant? older ≠ wiser 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, otherwise this page can be moved to plane (aviation). —Ruud 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A Google test shows about 315 million hits for "plane", and about 200 million for "plane -aircraft -airplane", so I'd say that non-aviation uses of "plane" seem to be dominant. However, as "plane" is an abbreviation, I would oppose such a move in the first place, as it's very much an informal terminology.--chris.lawson 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This term needs to be defined in the article! Currently, it is used but never defined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

"Orville Wright demonstrated on December 17th 1903 that it was possible for a ‘manned heavier than air machine to fly’. But, in 1895, eight years earlier, the Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade had designed a basic aircraft called Marutsakthi (meaning Power of Air) based on Vedic technology and had it take off unmanned before a large audience in the Chowpathy beach of Bombay. The importance of the Wright brothers lies in the fact, that it was a manned flight for a distance of 120 feet and Orville Wright became the first man to fly. But Talpade’s unmanned aircraft flew to a height of 1500 feet before crashing down and the historian Evan Koshtka, has described Talpade as the ‘first creator of an aircraft’.

According to scholar Ratnakar Mahajan who wrote a brochure on Talpade. ‘Being a Sanskrit scholar interested in aeronautics, Talpade studied and consulted a number of Vedic treatises like Brihad Vaimanika Shastra of Maharishi Bharadwaja Vimanachandrika of Acharya Narayan Muni Viman yantra of Maharish Shownik Yantra Kalp by Maharishi Garg Muni Viman Bindu of Acharya Vachaspati and Vimana Gyanarka Prakashika of Maharishi Dhundiraj’. This gave him confidence that he can build an aircraft with mercury engines. One essential factor in the creation of these Vedic aircraft was the timing of the Suns Rays or Solar energy (as being now utilised by NASA) when they were most effective to activate the mercury ions of the engine. Happily for Talpade Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwad of Baroda a great supporter of the Sciences in India, was willing to help him and Talpade went ahead with his aircraft construction with mercury engines. One day in 1895 (unfortunately the actual date is not mentioned in the Kesari newspaper of Pune which covered the event) before an curious scholarly audience headed by the famous Indian judge/ nationalist/ Mahadeva Govin-da Ranade and H H Sayaji Rao Gaekwad Talpade had the good fortune to see his un manned aircraft named as ‘Marutsakthi’ take off, fly to a height of 1500 feet and then fall down to earth.

But this success of an Indian scientist was not liked by the Imperial rulers. Warned by the British Government the Maharaja of Baroda stopped helping Talpade. It is said that the remains of the Marutsakthi were sold to ‘foreign parties’ by the relatives of Talpade in order to salvage whatever they can out of their loans to him. Talpade’s wife died at this critical juncture and he was not in a mental frame to continue with his researches. But his efforts to make known the greatness of Vedic Shastras was recognised by Indian scholars, who gave him the title of Vidya Prakash Pra-deep.

Talpade passed away in 1916 un-honoured, in his own country.

As the world rightly honours the Wright Brothers for their achievements, we should think of Talpade, who utilised the ancient knowledge of Sanskrit texts, to fly an aircraft, eight years before his foreign counterparts. "

Added by user Satyavrat.chaturvedi removed by user KP Botany 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No mention is made (yet) of fixed wing flying weapons, drones, cruise missiles and UAVs. Any takers? Binksternet 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are twin hulls heard of in planes? Scaled Composites White Knight Two is apparently gonna be one — Jack · talk · 03:46, Sunday, 26 August 2007

Planes with twin booms come close. P-38, sort of. P-61, sort of. P-82 Twin Mustang even more so. Binksternet 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Twin booms, gotcha. Cheers for that, there are apparently quite a few! — Jack · talk · 04:36, Sunday, 26 August 2007

• Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces
• Aircraft flight control systems

I think that the FPWCS article has enough content and well, I like it a lot. I think it's informative, unique, and just plain cool. Encyclopedic? Sure. It is a very specific circumstance, no doubt, but it happens to be a very commonly thought about one and so it's more than just an odd state of affairs to FAPWCS, it's sort of an aviator's dream and nightmare, and it's commonly thought about especially with regard to airline incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.8.124 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur that it should not be merged here, but Aircraft flight control systems is a better place for it. This article is long enough as it is. The title, Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces, is a bit misleading to, as it can imply the the plane either never had control surfaces, or that they somehow fell off. Also, the title is much too long. - BillCJ 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm merging the Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces to Aircraft flight control systems per a previous discussion on the latter page, and my added consensus. - BillCJ 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a section that lists and explains all specific applications or uses for aircrafts and possibly which kind of aircrafts are used for which purposes. Things such as recreational flights (sight-seeing), crop spraying, military purposes, parcels (mail) and equipment transportation, commercial passengers transportation, hurricanes studying, parachuting/skydiving, etc. RayLast (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone actually read this article? The grammar needs work. I fixed the first two sentences before realizing I can just look up airplanes on Google and never come back here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.233.75 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has changed all 'aircraft' to 'airplanes'... why?!

Further as a pilot, the international standard for all aircraft is knots, and Feet, not kilometres, and metres.

And I think calibration for instruments is based on inches mercury, not milibars, although I've heard ASOS in Canada list both.

So I am confused as to why then does wiki list all the speeds distances and altitude in S.I.?

Because wiki isn't for pilots, it's for the general public. Also, aircraft (imo)is an umbrella term including rotary wing. 222.153.97.55 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree with the pilot above. Altitude should certainly be measured in feet with speeds in knots. If you would like to include S.I., then put it in brackets after the knots and/or feet. All the controls and instruments ae explained in technical language so why not the distances too. Bonzostar (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page have the title it does. We're not perfectionists here. An airplane is an airplane. I'm never heard the term "Fixed-wing aircraft" in my life. I don't understand why people feel the need to place an article such as this at a page with such a title. → J@red  21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gyrocopters, helicopters, etc are not fixed wing, hence the distinction. Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's why they get their own pages. Could someone please tell me why airplane redirects here? Does "fixed-wing aircraft" umbrella any other aircraft other than the traditional airplane? If not, then I propose it be moved back to Airplane. → J@red  01:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, there is also a second reason it is like this - In the introduction you see aeroplane and airplane. Apparently long long ago in a glaxay far far away, people arguing between the two. Huge arguments, nastiness, etc. So eventually we got down to the technically correct and above all NUETRAL term fixed wing aircraft. This helps keep the issue from coming up again. Of course it does bring up your issue, which does have some merit, but apparently we can't go back without a bunch of people arguing over Americanisms and Britisms. =/ Zotel - the Stub Maker 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's fine as it is, then. → J@red  14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a rotary wing aircraft and a fixed wing aircraft page. The distinction seems perfectly clear to me. --Mmx1 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But there are also the Swing-Wing aeroplane (an aeroplane whose wings are not fixed) and the Heliplane (a rotary-wing aircraft with fixed wings). -- OrangUtanUK 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the article - fixed versus rotary describes whether the movement of the lift surfaces is responsible for the production of lift. Hence a swing-wing is a fixed-wing aircraft. The Heliplane would be hybrid as it relies on both methods of lift production. --Mmx1 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We might as individuals not be perfectionists, but as a group, on wikipedia we must endavor for perfection. Technical correctness is of the utmost importance to a reference source (as Wikipedia is).Pubuman 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actually on Wikipedia, we strive for perfection. Fixed-winged aircraft makes perfect sense as opposed to a rotary-wing aircraft. If you think that this title is bad (which it isn't) go complain about Football (Soccer).

I completely agree. If we did change the title to either "airplane" or "aeroplane", it would create arguments between Americans and Europeans. Fixed-wing aircraft makes perfect sense. Bonzostar (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently provided a good article (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html) which gives a statistically accurate analysis of the safety of airplanes, but I misquoted it. I quoted passenger-hour instead of passenger-journeys. This is the quote that should be used:

"Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis."

I tried to edit the section but it was rejected. Anyone who has the ability to edit this section would be in the right to include the above quote, thanks.

Autonova, 08.02.08 14.28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no information on the page about who invented it, where it was invented, when it was invented or how it was invented. Can someone add something on here? Lil.chocoholic.62 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's covered in the Aviation history article, and in good detail. No need to cover it twice. - BillCJ (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the citation tag. The fact is obviously true, all it takes to prove it is a trip to any super market and a quick look in the toy section. It would be nice if there was a citation, but the tag implies that the fact is reasonably disputed, which it isn't.67.160.147.2 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A fixed-wing aircraft is a heavier-than-air aircraft where movement of the wings in relation to the aircraft is NOT used to generate lift. First 131.53.128.23 and then BillCJ removed the word "not", and by doing so defined the topic of this article as the exact oposite of what it actually means. I am changing it back, and please, no one revert. Thank you. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have helped if you used an edit summary. When someone just deletes something, it is usually vandalism, but when they leave an edit summary adequately explaining what they are doing and why, it is less likely to be removed. Provided it's accurate, that is.--LWF (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do in the future. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Binksternet changed the lead sentence to make it clearer on this particular subject.--LWF (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it certainly looks that way. I like Binksternet's change. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The previous use of the word "not" was certainly not helpful; the current revision I hope is at least not unhelpful. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rest of the English Speaking World,

We'll give you Aeroplane if you give us Corn. This seems a fair compromise.

Best regards,

America 09:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Slay-worthy. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. We spell corn the same in all english-speaking countries.

Bonzostar (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Corn in the US and Canada (Indian corn) is called maize in other English-speaking countries. I think this is what the user was referring to. - BillCJ (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Bonzostar (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has a couple issues:

1. The introduction is too short given the breadth of the article and the information covered. This article could easily support 2 or 3 paragraphs.
2. It uses an Overview section which is the purpose of the introduction or lead-in. This section could easily be edited into the introduction for a fuller description of the article.

I present the following edit as an example of a revamp of the introduction:

A fixed-wing aircraft is a heavier-than-air craft whose lift is generated by the aircraft's forward motion through the air, not by wing motion relative to the aircraft. The term is used to distinguish from rotary-wing aircraft or ornithopters, where the wing surfaces move relative to the aircraft in order to generate lift. In most of the English-speaking world, the spelling aeroplane is used, while in the United States and Canada, the term airplane is used. Aeroplane is the older of the two spellings, dating back to the late 19th century.^[1] These terms refer to any fixed wing aircraft powered by propellers or jet engines. The word derives from the Greek αέρας (aéras-) ("air") and -plane.^[2]

Fixed-wing aircraft range from small training and recreational aircraft to large wide-body aircraft and military cargo aircraft. The term also embraces aircraft with folding or removable wings that are intended to fold when on the ground to ease storage or facilitate transport. for example, a vehicle trailer or the powered lift connecting the hangar deck of an aircraft carrier to its flight deck. It also embraces "variable geometry" aircraft, such as the General Dynamics F-111, F-14 Tomcat and the Panavia Tornado, which can vary the sweep angle of their wings during flight. There are also rare examples of aircraft which can vary the angle of incidence of their wings in flight, such the F-8 Crusader, which are also considered to be "fixed-wing".

Since its introduction, the fixed-wing aircraft has developed into the second fastest method of transport, after the rocket. Fixed-wing aircraft are used for...

This is the tip of the iceberg with this article. Especially one that is considered to be important enough to be included in the Wikipedia 0.7 project. --Born2flie (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Back in the dim and distant past, there was an article at aeroplane. This article was frequently moved by those offended with the title to airplane, but it was always moved back and the usual AE/BE spelling arguments continued. That was until someone decided to merge the article into aircraft, in order to stop the bickering. Laterly the article has been recreated here at fixed-wing aircraft, but it appears to use the US spelling airplane throughout. The end result, another defeat for BE spelling. Jooler 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So you are bringing this up why? The spelling is addressed in the very beginning of the article. If you want to go thru and replace half the airplanes with aeroplanes, that is fine with me, although "aircraft" would probably be a better replacement term. When translating the article from Portugese, fixing the ameri-bias in terminology was not on my mind =) Maybe I will go thru and fix it up at some point myself... maybe. Zotel - the Stub Maker 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that some people insist on Americanising the article's spellings. Surely it should be obvious that, since the actual title of this article has been constructed as a compromise, then the word "aircraft" should be used throughout? The issue of the spelling is addressed at the very beginning - there is no need to use either variant through the article.Simply put: The word "airplane" does not exist in British English.. and I don't know how the word "aeroplane" exists in America. However, the word "aircraft" exists quite happily, and is used in both variants of the language. So this happy compromise should be used. I tire of having to keep this page on my watch list in order to revert American kiddies who think that they should encorce their spellings because there are more of them. Wikipedia is international. EuroSong 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

you did NOT only use aircraft, you swichted to aeroplane, specifically for YOUR regionalism. International does NOT mean "everyone else but the Americans"!!! Britisms and Americanisms are SUPPOSED to be equal, and your intial "aeroplane" change was bad faith in my POV. Glad to see you didnt repeat it though. Better than the last bunch that came thru here anyhow. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that ONE instance was just my reaction to the American arrogance which seems to be spread throughout Wikipedia, eh? We only have one English-language WP: "en". Therefore all the English speaking countries of the world must share it. We should be as international as possible, by finding neutral, mutually acceptable words. It does provoke a reaction, when I see Americans thinking that just because there are more of them than there are British people, then they can force through anything they want. That is not the case. Now, I am just trying to keep the article neutral. EuroSong ^talk 15:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to British arrogance? I'm sure the American colonists thought the British were arrogant, but the British probably thought they were looking after their own best interests. Whoever is the dominant force in the world is considered "arrogant" by others, that is just how history and attitudes seem to run. I am not sure that is the objective reality however. Methinks most people consider their POV superior, whether they are British, American, Aussie, whateve. Inherent bias is not automatically arrogange. Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The AIRPLANE is an AMERICAN invention so it should be spelt airplane and not "Aeroplane". God damn, wikipedia has had a horrible European bias lately. User:Daniel_Chiswick 26 March, 2007

Although that is true, the language spoken in America was created in England, thus the English spelling should be used. Aeroplane is the correct way to spell it from the Oxford English Dictionary. Bonzostar (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of inclusiveness. All that the Wikipedia's current policies suggest is that any given page use American or British throughout, rather than switching back and forth. On a related note, arguing for one form of spelling over another is likely best achieved through a post that properly spells such common words as "American" and avoids profanity. MrZaius^talk 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The airplane was invented in America...Do we not let inventers come up with the names of thier own creations. As im perfectly happy with fixed-wing aircraft, but it first flew in Kitty Hawk, NC and is therefore an American creation...so if any one has claims on it, it would be Americans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wrights did not coin the word Airplane, in fact, it came from the British English Aeroplane (I'd never have guessed!). Also, technically speaking, an Aeroplane refers to a flat surface angled with the L.E. slightly upwards towards the wind so as to create lift. That is from Greek Aero (obvious meaning) and Plane, as in Surface. Thus Aeroplane means a surface designed so as to move through the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.83.211 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go for a compromise of aircaft. It doesn't matter where the creation was invented. Do we use the Chinese version of gunpowder? The Phoenician verion of coloured glass? The Greek version of the theathre? In any case where American and Bitish English collide, a compromise should be made. Or an alternative would be to create two separate Wikipedias, but that is quite unrealistic and stiupid. Think about how many people will avoid one or the other. Like I said before, swallow your pride and compromise.

On the matter of British English vs North American English, there is some useful information at national varieties of English. In particular, the Manual of Style does not advocate exclusive use of American English spelling. It advocates that where an article is commenced using one spelling, all future changes to that article should preserve that one spelling. See retaining the existing variety. As a result, Wikipedia will always consist of a mix of British and North American English, and the world will cope with that without any problem. This principle may be helpful in the debate about aeroplane and airplane. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A "compromise" already exists in regard to the use of "airplane" and aeroplane", and that is to not use either one in aviation-related articles. It's been in place a long time, much longer than my nearly 3 years on WP. "Retaining the existing variety" didn't work very well in this contentious issue, so something else had to be done. I'd actually prefer going back to the "existing variety" guideline, but check the archived discussions at WT:AIR for why that's probably not going to happen in the near future. Those discussions aren't much different than this section in terms of tone and civility from some on both sides. Sad, but that's the reality right now. I guess we can all be thankful that neither side uses the word "aerocraft" instead of "aircraft"! - BillCJ (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise this is a contentious area and I really would hate to see the controversy affect the quality of the article here. I think the present version is a little too emphatic on debunking the Bernoulli theory, but the version I just reverted was far too POV the other way, verbose and sloppily written. No offence. Can anyone either defuse the slight POV in the current version or synthesise the two views into an expanation that we can all live with? Guinnog 18:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't "lift" be changed to "elevator" ? Eregli bob (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the section on wings it says

A wing (or wings in a multiplane) with an airfoil cross-section shape, used to generate aerodynamic lifting force to support the aircraft in flight by deflecting air downward as the aircraft moves forward

while it is possible to create lift this way. and a small amount of lift is made this way on some aircraft, this is not the way almost all of the lift is made in almost all aircraft. 122.148.165.5 (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)scarecrow

on the english wikipedia the british invented everything, even god, but there are different stories told elsewhere, including in the Glider article. it would be fair if chinese and other attemps were pointed (List of early flying machines). Cliché Online 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

do you fancy a bum? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.44.52 (talk) 02:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The entries here for Ader are not only without citations, but the claims made are in conflict with Wikipedia linked information on the airplanes listed as well as the Wikipedia biography for Ader. 68.99.134.118 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The airplane was invented in USA, so shouldn't we be using that term? It's also far more common than "fixed-wing aircraft". I know this subject has come up before, and the move failed, but the article should really be moved. Malamockq (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact the first recorded MANNED flight was in the USA, but the invention of the craft was certainly not there, or at that time. Many aeronautical experiments with assorted craft were being carried out around the world.81.145.242.132 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

• Actually, the earlier aeroplanes were unsuccessful, but it was a manned airplane that first successfully flew. If you want to use the name applied to a series of unsuccessful designs, that's your choice. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It matters not one bit where something was invented. The fact is, this is an international encyclopædia for the English-speaking world, and articles must be named internationally. If this were usa.wikipedia.org then it could use all American words - but it's not. EuroSong ^talk 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion, but WP policy and guidelines, specifically WP:ENGVAR, strongly disagrees with you:

The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines.

The four guidelines are:

• Consistency within articles
• Strong national ties to a topic
• Retaining the existing variety
• Opportunities for commonality

Inline with the last guideline, WP:AIR has, by consensus, chosen to use fixed-wing aircraft as the preferable alternative to either airplane or aeroplane, in most aircraft-related articles.

- BillCJ (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The airplane was invented in USA, so shouldn't we be using that term? - actually, if you read the Wright brothers you'll find they only use the term aeroplane, as did many US aircraft companies in the early years of aviation, e.g., Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company. It was the US that changed, not the rest of the world. Outside of the US I've only ever heard the term 'airplane' from people who get all their 'information' from US TV programmes, and who wouldn't know a Spitfire from a Jumbo Jet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.59 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wright brothers' nephew Milton (Lorin's son), who had seen gliders and the Flyer under construction in the bicycle shop when he was a boy, gave a brief speech and formally transferred the airplane to the Smithsonian, which displayed it with the accompanying label:

The original Wright brothers aeroplane

The world's first power-driven heavier-than-air machine in which man made free, controlled, and sustained flight

Invented and built by Wilbur and Orville Wright

Flown by them at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina December 17, 1903

By original scientific research the Wright brothers discovered the principles of human flight

As inventors, builders, and flyers they further developed the aeroplane, taught man to fly, and opened the era of aviation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.41 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The contention that passenger hours is a better comparison than passenger miles traveled doesn't make any sense to me.

If I'm considering a trip from SF to New York -- the safety question is:

"On which mode of transportation am I most likely to die during the trip?"

Since the goal of almost all traveling is to get from point A to point B -- not to spend time traveling.

Now if you were comparing the safety of hang gliding to white water rafting I would agree that accidents per hour is the relevant statistic -- since those activities are usually done for fun and so you'd want to evaluate your fun to risk ratio. Whereas for car and plane travel the relevant consideration is miles to risk ratio. [Unless of course you're taking purely recreational flying or driving.]76.202.192.91 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that passengers per mile is a better statistic, although all should be included and are useful. Certainly, the contention that passengers per mile is unfair is false or needs to be qualified. I edited the section to reflect this. I left the numbers from the previous version unchanged, but there seems to be a contradiction. According to the previous author(s), the risk by distance is 20 less for planes than for cars, yet the risk per hour is 10 higher for planes than for cars. This would imply that planes cover 200 times as much distance per unit of time as cars, something which is impossible (cars don't travel 2-3 mph). In Freakonomics, I read that the risk per hour is approximately equal for planes and for cars, which would make more sense, because it would imply that cars cover about 40-60 mph. Some sources for the exact numbers would be nice. Morphling89 (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be beneficial in this discussion if all involved would read this source that is cited in the article,

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html. Since it is the New Scientist, it's hard to ignore.

Here are the numbers given in the source (apologies for no html experience)

Deaths per 100 million km

Plane...0.03

Rail...0.1

Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys

Plane...55

Car...4.5

Train...2.7

Crucially, I think it a fair point (indeed, it appears in the article) to say that an individual would prefer not to die at the end of a plane journey, after the several hours and countless kilometres of perfectly safe travel. Indeed, most accidents occur during take-off and landing, so this situation isn't exactly unheard of.

Thus, when an individual makes a journey by any method of transport, the most important thing is that the individual survives the journey, not the most number of hours or kilometres during the journey.

By this logic, I hope you agree with the New Scientist writer in that the Deaths per journey is the fairest statistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But journey is not the same for an aicraft or for a car. The average car journey is greatly shorter then the average air journey. It does mean, that if you drive some 1000 km (1000 miles, if you prefer)trip, the per-journey statistics (based on the average journey, say, some 50 miles) is not applicable. Per-mile statistics equally does not indicates, that aircraft are the safest transport. Would airliners fly from one street to another, Deaths-per-Journey ratings were far worse. Statistic, presented in the Article, (as well as the Common Sense) only indicates, that aircraft are safest to travel long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.128.139 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Small aircraft can be designed and constructed by amateurs as homebuilts, such as Chris Neil's Woody Helicopter. Other aviators with less knowledge make their aircraft using pre-manufactured kits, assembling the parts into a complete aircraft."The above-bolded section reads like vandalism. Unable to find anything interesting on Google about it. Delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.229.67 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it looks like someone has played a joke. I have deleted reference to Neil Woody's Helicopter and moved the remaining paragraph from the top to the bottom of the section. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about this, but if I am right some New Zealander called Richard Pearson was developing an airplane around about the same time as the Wright Brothers. Is this true? (and if it is, add it to the article) --202.156.14.203 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The New Zealander was Richard Pearse. Some claim that he actually flew a powered aircraft in New Zealand about 9 months prior to the Wright Brothers, but there appears to be general acknowledgement that the documentary evidence is incomplete. Further information is available at Richard Pearse. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The current (12/12/2007) version of this article states that the term is derived from Greek αέρας (aéras-) ("air") and -plane. I am not an expert but it looks more reasonable to me that the -plane is derived from Greek πλανάμαι (planámai) ("wander"). I also think that air is derived from the ancient Greek word αήρ and not the modern Greek αέρας. However I will not modify the article since I am not 100% sure about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.74 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Collins Dictionary of English agrees with you on this, see http://collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=Aero- and http://collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=aeroplane . Juleswatt (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The etymology of the word "aeroplane" is obvious to a Greek speaker: "aero" from the Greek "αέρας" meaning "air" and "plane" from the Greek "πλανώμαι" meaning "wandering", which makes sense compared to the version quoting "plane" as the second component, which is the same as in the word "planet", where it makes sense again. The second component is defined here

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/aeroplane?view=uk

The whole thing is (somehow) here

http://www.yawiktionary.com/a/1148354108621.html

Other online dictionaries refer to the word as French or Latin. I am looking for further sources (maybe more credible?) for the etymology of the word. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpser (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The term 'Aeroplane' (or 'Airplane') refers to:

1. the air

and:

2. a fixed, flat surface, i.e., a plane

This is why in aeronautical terminology the wing(s) is/are referred-to as the "mainplane" and the horizontal stabiliser is referred-to as the "tailplane".

The word is a compound of greek and latin, which is why you won't find it in either dictionaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.168 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is not a revival of the page title debate, so do NOT mistake it for one.The article currently states: In the United States, Canada and many other regions, the term "airplane" is applied to these aircraft. In Britain and many other regions, the term "aeroplane" is used. This is ambiguous in several ways. For one, the "many other regions" description for both spellings is utterly confusing. Additionally, what are the many other regions specified as predominantly using the 'airplane' spelling? As an Aussie, I've barely seen airplane spelling, and I'm certain Australia and New Zealand sway towards 'aeroplane'. From what I can gather, the UK, Australia and New Zealand spelling is 'aeroplane', where as the US and Canadian spelling is 'airplane', and I'm willing to bet in the rest of the Commonwealth one would pilot an 'aeroplane'.En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've wondered at the wording myself. That's what happenswhen you have an encylopdedia anyone can edit - they do! Anyway, there are a few countires that speak US-influended English, such as the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, but I don't know how they spell airplane/aeroplane. (I don't know of any Canadian-influenced countries, as Canadians are generally too busy whining about US influence. :P Unlsees you count Nunavit. - BilCat (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rewording that bit and see how quickly someone objects. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in many countries the residents don't speak English, so they use a word other than aeroplane or airplane. The difference is not related to national borders, but it is related to whether the locals write meter or metre, or color or colour, and whether they say windshield or windscreen, or elevator or lift. What do people think of the following alternative text:

Where American-English is spoken, a fixed-wing aircraft is commonly called an "airplane". In traditional English the term "aeroplane" is used. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The 6th paragraph under "Design and Construction" talks about research into reducing noise pollution. This seems out of place and maybe just a plug for MIT/ Cambridge. I propose moving it to the seperate page, "Aviation and the enviroment".

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.75.180.198 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please not provide free advertising for a particular company in the top image of this article? To anyone who works on this article regularly: please get rid of that image in favour of any one of hundreds of fixed-wing aircraft images that don't have a corporate logo ten metres high on them! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cant see any advertising on the image other than the company name which is usual for airliners and cant really be seen as free advertising. No particular reason why that image is used other than it shows a contempary fixed wing aircraft, so you are welcome to suggest another one on this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Many aircraft are decorated in corporate livery—the Jet2.com aircraft is no different. However, your point about having no logo has some merit. Here are a few images of aircraft in flight, ones not immediately associated with an airline. Personally, I prefer images of aircraft heading up and to the left for a right-hand infobox image. I also prefer an airliner because it is the aircraft most readers will be familiar with:

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8

Perhaps one of these will suit. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Binkster. You are right about corporate livery being the norm, i just didn't want WP to have one particular company's livery given a bit of an advertising spot. I used one of your suggestions, but this image would also be an option (if editors preferred something with a blue background and strong colour):

Although it has a clear logo, since it is a national coast guard, it isn't really 'advertising'. If anyone prefers this one (of a C-130 Hercules, which is also a fairly common plane i'd say), go ahead and change. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Image No. 8 (Boeing 737-200) is the best of the choices. Hamiltonstone has now added it - see diff. Dolphin (t) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY object to the premise of the this section. WHo cares if a certain company's livery is seen in the Lead? I have NEVER seen a coporation's livery on WP and thought, "Wow, what a great image! I must buy that company's product!" And I doubt anyone ensle has either. I really hope this doens't become a regular argument on WP. - BilCat (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BilCat, you say you completely object to the premise of this section. I don't have a problem with your point of view - many others would share it. But why do you object to the image of the B737-200? You deleted it so there must be something objectionable about it. I suggest the only reason you removed the image of the 737-200 was to emphasise your point about objecting to the premise of the section. Obviously we can use images that don't have corporate logos. Dolphin (t) 05:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No I restored the previous image to emphasise my point. We obviously can't have two images in the Lead box, and it would upste the Airbussies if we had 2 737 images at the top of the page! - BilCat (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, you have made your point loud and clear. Now please restore Hamiltonstone's great image of the 737-200. I would like to see these leading images refreshed every few weeks. In July you can refresh with your favourite Airbus image, with or without a logo. Dolphin (t) 05:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with changing the image every few weeks. But to remove the existing one simply because it has a logo is silly, and I don't want to see a precedent set here that spreads to other pages. That would become highly disruptive. The previos 737 image has been thee for a long time, so substituting another 737 isn't the best way to go. My favorite AIrbus images aren't in-flight ones, so they would not be helpful (and the airplane is in several parts too!). Perhaps a Russian or Brasillian pic this time, and not one from underneath either. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with underneath shots? Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) Thanks Bilcat but one thing you do not do is offer an argument as to why the image that was present before today is preferable. At present we have a choice between two clear, functionally identical images of two very similar planes. One shows the livery and web address of a particular commercial business; one does not. Given that Wikipedia is not advertising and we avoid allowing promotional materials to our pages, it would seem a simple matter to prefer the image without the promotional details, where one is available. I don't know how the image with the jet2.com plane got to be there, but i'd have thought it was a simple application of the objectives of WP to prefer a non-commercial image since we have identified one (in fact, several, thanks to Binksternet). In these circumstances, your reverting of the change is odd. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. I thought your objecting to adverts on aircraft in PD images was odd, so we're even. The aircraft's livery may be promotional, but the image itself was taken by a private citizen for the purpose of illustrating the aircraft. . - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Every edit must be judged on its merits, not on the perceived motivation of the editor. A good edit is still a good edit even if the motivation of the editor is inappropriate. A bad edit is still a bad edit even if the motivation of the editor is pure.

There is no significant move at Wikipedia to prohibit images that might serve as advertising. There is no proposed policy to this effect. If and when such a policy is proposed BilCat can argue eloquently for that proposal to be discarded.

For BilCat to revert Hamiltonstone’s edit solely because BilCat objected to the claimed motivation is foolishness. Edits should be judged on their intrinsic merits, and on nothing else. Dolphin (t) 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea as to why the US refers to it as an airplane, but other regions dont, despite the wright brothers having used aeroplane in their writings. Americans are definitely prone to shortening commonly used words, and airplane is slightly shorter and sounds less "french", and more "german" (we seem to have a preference for german origin words over latin/french when speaking informally: "fuck" or "making love" over "intercourse" or "le creation l'amour"--:)--). IM not saying this is fair or right, and of course as an american my ears are now permanently used to airplane, but if someone could show the evolution of this word, maybe that would help. i understand the value of compromise, but i am not satisfied with fixed wing aircraft. what about the planes whose wings can be moved from perpendicular to v shape? those technically arent fixed wing. my preference would be to go with aeroplane if that's what the wrights used. and, of course, i want no part in an edit war. its just an idea, probably incorrect and unnecessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, there is a difference between a fixed-wing aircraft and an airplane/aeroplane. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) defines:

• an aircraft to be any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air.
• an airplane/aeroplane to be a fixed-wing aircraft that is power driven by one or more propellers or jet engines.

Therefore aircraft includes gyroplanes and helicopters. Fixed-wing aircraft includes gliders. Airplane/aeroplane obviously does not include gyroplanes or helicopters, and it also doesn't include gliders even though gliders are fixed-wing aircraft. Dolphin (t) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that not all fixed wing aircraft are airplanes/aeroplanes (except of course for motor-gliders, which are airplanes when the motor is on per the definition, but not when it's off; however, an airplane is still an airplane when its engine quits), but ALL airplanes/aeroplanes are fixed wing aircraft. Hence the comromise, ENGVAR notwithstanding. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In a way Foot and Bicycle shouldn't be mentioned just like that in these statistics. After all, in themselves they're much safer than whatever a motorised means of transportation. Especcially of Foot the number of deaths in itself is about zero. With Bike there may be a few, but in itself it certainly is one of the most safe means as well. As good as all deaths in these two fields are caused by motorised vehicles and therefore might or should be mentioned on the account of the last mentioned, as increasing their statistic unsafety. (When for instance an airplane drops on a crowded marketplace, it's not walking on that place, that is relatively unsafe, but the fact that there are airplanes flying around; so the 200 killed pedestrians in that disaster in a way should be added to the number of airplane victims). VKing (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If not a new article, there might be a new section in this article, with the title "Airdisaster", informing about among other things the (twenty or so) biggest airdisasters untill now and about famous persons, that died in an airplane crash.VKing (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• John Denver
• Buddy Holly
• Lech Kaczyński
• Jim Reeves
• The Big Bopper J.P.Richardson
• Ritchie Valens

In a 1958 Munich air disaster8 Manchester United players:

• Geoff Bent
• Roger Byrne
• Eddie Colman
• Duncan Edwards (survived the crash, but died in hospital 15 days later)
• Mark Jones
• David Pegg
• Tommy Taylor
• Liam Whelan

as well as:

• Tom Curry, trainer
• Bert Whalley, chief coach

To make a start with such a List of famous persons, that died in an airplane crash. VKing (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good list for Wikipedia, but the article Fixed-wing aircraft is not the place. There is already a few categories of articles related to air accidents. See HERE1 and HERE2. There is also a category devoted to people involved in air accidents. See HERE3. I suggest a new article linked to that sort of category. Dolphin (t) 05:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any reliable source that shows Kelvin actually said that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. The citation on this source is wikiquotes, and says: "Often reproduced out of context and without citation to any primary source as "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", like in The Experts Speak : The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation (1984) by Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky, p. 236". Even if Kelvin did say this, it is probably out of context, so unless someone can find a reliable source with context the quote should be deleted. I think the more appropriate quote would be " I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning" and instead of citing wikiquotes, cite http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/letters.html#baden-powell, since it has the original document. (I'm new to editing Wikipedia which is why I haven't done these corrections myself.Poolshark2468 (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 12:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC).Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)