Talk:Monoplane

Blather

This was recently added to the opening paragraph to the section on the low wing; "It is the configuration most commonly found on passenger airliners." I removed it because it is not about the low wing as such and many other types also commonly have a low wing. My removal was reverted with the edit comment; "Surely it is a matter of note that almost all jetliners are low wing?" The answer is yes if you can source that remark, no if you cannot. But either way, for the reason I just gave the opening paragraph is the wrong place for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Blather": long-winded talk with no real substance (n), talk long-windedly without making very much sense: (vi). Is it good faith to use such an epithet? "Cheers" Arrivisto (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead picture - 1874 DuTemple monoplane

The 1874 DuTemple monoplane (which presumably never flew) seems a poor lead image. I suggest it be replaced with something more appropriate, such as a Supermarine Spitfire. Arrivisto (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

There is a difference of opinion on the lead sentence: (1) A monoplane is a fixed-wing aircraft with a single pair of main wing surfaces, in contrast to a biplane or other multiplane, each of which has multiple pairs of wings. or (2) A monoplane is a fixed-wing aircraft with a single wing plane, in contrast to a biplane or other multiplane, which each have multiple planes.

I am firmly of the opinion that the former is there clearer, especially to the uninitiated. A comment was put: " rephrase - "mono" means single, not all wings come in "pairs" "; but, apart from some extreme examples, such as of Rutan's design exercises, it is a truism that (just like a bird) wings come in pairs 99.9% of the time. Arrivisto (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To maintain as you do that a "monoplane" has "a pair of surfaces" is quite wrong. It literally means a single plane, and that is what everybody understands. George Cayley's and Otto Lilienthal's gliders and almost every modern hang glider has a single wing surface: note in this context that we talk of the "Rogallo wing" as the whole surface and not as one side of it. And everybody knows that a biplane has two wings - to contend that some have three wings is equally untenable. Yes, since the fuselage became common we have become accustomed to sometimes talking of left and right wings but left and right "planes" or "surfaces" are never used in serious discussion: when referred to as such they are left and right wings in the same plane. This is an encyclopedia not a popular blog and it needs to get these things right in the lead sentence.

On top of that you have rolled in your favourite Spitfire again. I'm sorry, but much as I love it as an aeroplane it has no topical relevance here, that's why I replaced it with a more informative illustration. We certainly do not need two here, not only is it mere unencyclopedic eye candy but I don't like seeing the great Spitfire reduced to such a role. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to get the Aircraft/Aviation Project over here or are you happy to accept this now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft lift devices are called "wings" after birds; and birds have two wings. The etymology of "monoplane" is clear, but "a single wing plane" is probably NOT "what everybody understands". I understand your "three wing biplane" point, but equally, it is not always true to say "a monoplaneis a fixed-wing aircraft with a single wing plane" when a monoplane with dihedral would have wings in different planes.

Like most bona-fide Wikieditors, I try to present any topic in as accessible way as possible, so remarks suggesting that succinct writing is equivalent to a "popular blog" is unworthy. You add, "on top of that you have rolled in your favourite Spitfire again". Why so patronising? It is not obvious why the Etrich Taube image is "more informative"; I would have thought the Spitfire image ideal. It's worth remembering that without the Spitfire we'd be under the Nazi jackboot and Wikipedia wouldn't exist. Arrivisto (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How about: "(1) A monoplane is a fixed-wing aircraft with a single main wing, in contrast to a biplane or other multiplane, each of which has multiple planes"? Arrivisto (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That is very close to the version I prefer, save that you have shortened "single wing plane" to "single main wing", although you left "multiple planes" untouched at the end. As you say, the term "wing" can also sometimes refer to one side or the other; therefore the term "plane" is often introduced in order to disambiguate the meaning. Also, the same terminology should be used throughout the sentence so that the terms "wing" and "plane are not used interchangeably to mean the same thing. I remain unclear as to why you find the unambiguous form unacceptable but the ambiguous form acceptable.

In this context, dihedral is a neat example of the mess we have to avoid. For example Clancy talks in one sentence of "each wing" angled above the horizontal plane and in the next of "the wing", meaning the whole thing, being yawed at an angle. And are the halves now in separate inclined planes or has "the plane" been creased in the middle? The truth is, nobody cares as long as the meaning is clear from the context. Since an article's lead sentence has no context yet, it has to explain things in an unambiguous way.

The Taube was the first monoplane to go into volume production: the Santos-Dumont Demoiselle was the first one to be sold to order and would be an equally informative alternative. Either way, one lead image is sufficient.

As the great John Cleese remarked, "I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it". This article is not about Nazi-bashing any more than running a hotel is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor with Arrivisto's TP on my watchlist...from a lay-persons POV, the Taube image looks like a kite with no easily-deciphered scale and lack of 3D; the second image helps to overcome these problems. Again from an outsider's perspective, retention of both seems more-encyclopedic to me if insisting the first is retained. Further suggest the caption is enhanced to include 'circa 19**'??? whatever, for better reader experience, per WP:OBVIOUS, don't make 'em struggle with click-throughs to find the date (also applies to the second img).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely the point is to educate, not obfuscate in meaningless grammatical pedantry? Speaking as an ex-flight controls engineer, I'm perfectly happy to talk about the wings, plural, on a monoplane, as would be any colleague I ever encountered. Equally aviation terminology commonly embraces the notion of a monoplane having two wings: "I was flying left wing low", "I saw him off my right wing", "returned to base despite losing half a wing" (try that with the meaning of an entire sided wing) and so on. This usage is also true of hang-gliders, with their single surface wing. It is the usage readers will be familiar with. "A monoplane is a fixed wing aircraft with wings in a single plane, in contrast to biplanes and other multiplanes which have wings in more than one plane" educates, illuminates, and retains the common usages non-professional readers will be familiar with. Anyone who needs to understand why both wings are simultaneously a single wing likely won't be looking in this article, or on wiki at all.

The explanatory note in Wing configuration seems a useful way to go.

On a secondary point, the second paragraph makes some dubious claims. The most drag efficient wingform is surely wingless, while the issue with early monoplanes was structural strength, with weight as a secondary issue emerging from that, and comparative manouverability being relative rather than absolute. I'm relatively certain a monoplane Bristol M.1 was more manouverable than, say, the quadruplane Supermarine Nighthawk.

82.24.122.84 (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

History and citation

I just reverted some additions to the section on parasol wings. They were primarily historical and mostly belonged in the history section. They were also uncited and there is far too much uncited historical comment as it is. If new historical developments are to be added, let's do it properly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit on 22 December 2021

Ahunt I agree I erroneously wrote without proper citation, however, that statement is supported by several other articles; I am attaching just a few below. I agree that the statement should have been slightly more appropriately framed. https://airplaneacademy.com/high-wing-vs-low-wing-aircraft-pros-cons-and-key-differences/ https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/high-wing-vs-low-wing-what-s-the-difference-between-them https://singleenginepilot.com/which-is-better-high-wing-or-low-wing-planes/ If you find this adequate, could you restore my edit with proper changes? Thanks Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. The text you tried to add, regarding high-wing airplanes was It also gives excellent downwards visibility, which helps in aircraft landings, especially those carried out by novices. I removed it because it was unsourced, but it is also fundamentally not correct from a piloting point of view. None of the three sources you have cited above support the claim, either. The closest any of them come is the first one which says A number of training maneuvers require student pilots to visually track a point on the ground and all pilots should be constantly scanning for traffic, particularly when maneuvering in busy, crowded training areas. High wing aircraft offer the advantage of excellent downward visibility, which is useful during landing practice and ground reference maneuver training. But here he is clearly talking about generally being able to see the airport environment and traffic from the circuit, which is true. I have owned both high-wing and low-wing aircraft and the idea that high wing aircraft are easier to land because you can see down is a common fallacy, based on the idea that a pilot looks down at the runway when landing. We don't, or if you do, you will risk a hard landing. In fact a pilot looks out the windscreen down the runway, towards the opposite end of the runway, to land. It is the only sight point that gives the proper perspective for touchdown. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Any statement that “... helps in aircraft landings ...” may come from a published source, but not a reliable source. I have flown both high-wing and low-wing airplanes. I prefer the latter in the circuit area. When a pilot is flying in the vicinity of a runway (TO and landing) it is important to look out almost continuously - sighting other airplanes and monitoring the location of the airplane relative to the runway and other ground features, and general situational awareness. In a high-wing airplane as soon as a turn is commenced, if the pilot looks in the direction of turn the wing is “in the way”, obscuring the desired view. In contrast, when making a turn in a low-wing airplane the view in the direction of turn is clear and even enhanced by the wing-tip falling well below the horizon. On the basis of all operations in the circuit area I prefer the low wing. Dolphin (t) 04:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time out for responding.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)