Talk:MIT EAD Airframe Version 2

January 2019

There seems to be a dispute over the content of this article. Please see this.

I hope things can get sorted out here.

Ping User:Ethan Krauss

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The article claim that the MIT aircraft is the first certainly needs qualifying - others have also contributed to the field, notably Seversky. The website at www.electronairllc.org does make some interesting claims. I am having trouble finding independent verification of the claim that their craft flies fully unsupported with an onboard power and propulsion system, but that is probably the limited setup I am using (e.g. javascript disabled).

@Ethan Krauss: Thank you for coming here to set the record straight. Please do not expect instant results, as our community can be a bit bureaucratic about things and we will want to check out your information with independent reliable sources. I will see what I can do, but it may take time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Claim of first to fly

This claim needs independent verification, beyond mere repeats of the team's publicity handouts. The ionocraft article suggests at least one candidate predecessor. It may be that the claim is valid in more limited circumstance than the press hype suggests, so I have tried to reflect that in the article lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is nearly correct by the addition of "fixed wing." However, It is important to note that Dr. Steven Barrett at MIT did claim that his student team had the first "ion propelled aircraft of any kind to carry a power supply" to Science Magazine. It is difficult to believe such an mistake could be made by such a prestigious source. It is for that specific reason that many news articles have appeared stating the same thing, without any further checking of sources. Some of the correct sources include the US Patent Office, Google, and flight videos of earlier devices. Other news articles also exist, where the reporters saw it working with a power supply well before MIT, as well as official senior aerospace observers. All of these things are simple to verify. Please see "Self Contained Ion Powered Aircraft" (an ion propelled aircraft with onboard power). Frankly, I tend to avoid standing up and correcting any professor, even when I see an error, but these types of widespread historical inaccuracies are not OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan Krauss (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There is another subtlety in the question as to whether a craft is ion "propelled". A craft using EHD for vertical lift would be classified by the FAA as a "powered lift" type, as opposed to using it for forward thrust. It is directly analogous to the difference between an aeroplane propeller and a helicopter rotor. A helicopter rotor is only secondarily used for propulsion, and that of a gyroplane not at all. Many inventors, MIT perhaps included, are better at inventing than at wordplay, which is one good reason why wikipedia's policy on allowed reliable sources is so picky. As an encyclopedia we are not here to adjudicate, we are here to note what the rest of the world adjudicates. It can be truly frustrating at times! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

EAD Abbreviation

EAD stands for electroaerodynamic? The abbreviation should be clarified in the article. 217.92.178.108 (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)