My page for messing about with all things Aircraft.
| Domain search | 23/11/2022 | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| theaerodrome.com | 481 | |
| Aerial Visuals | Sub-sites include Airframe Dossier | |
| airwar.ru | 281 | |
| aviastar.org | 0 | |
| greyfalcon.us | 0 | Black Sun Redux |
| globalsecurity.org | 5,653 | Many not under Aviation wikiproject |
| Kites, Birds and Stuff | 0 | P.D. Stemp |
| luft46.com | 0 | |
| luftarchiv.de | 0 | |
| militaryfactory.com + aircraft | 121 | 121 not under Aviation wikiproject |
| nevingtonwarmuseum.com | 0 | |
| planespotters.net | 1,184 | |
| secretprojects.co.uk | 0 | |
| ww2aircraft.net | 0 | |
| Total | 7,581 | Plus Military Factory |
Suggested citation tag:
((citation needed|date=((subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME)) ((subst:CURRENTYEAR))|reason=unreliable and/or copyvio source removed))Suggested edit comments, as appropriate:
rm unreliable and/or copyvio source per [[AV/R]]rm unreliable and/or copyvio source per [[AV/R]], tagrm unreliable and/or copyvio source per [[AV/R]] and associated dataRefactoring ((Infobox aircraft engine)) and other engine infoboxes.
I am currently experimenting with table formatted output in my sandbox; engine parameters in User:Steelpillow/test2.
This is my current template code for, i.e. rendering of, the Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054, with a few bits added to exercise all the code changes.
Specifications (fake pseudoheading)
style="vertical-align:top" to each applicable <tr> element. - doneExample: Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II#Specifications (A-10C)
These parameters are indented as a nested sub-list following the hardpoints parameter entry. They have bolded pseudonames as usual, but are also indented to the bullet-list second level:
It should be possible to trap the pseudo headings as table headings in the usual way, and indent via margin/padding.
It is also possible to just invoke hardpoints and enter free text, including sub-lists. See below.
Some articles have nested lists added by the users as free text. For example:
They sometimes use a <br>, <br/> or <br /> to pseudo-nest. This could be trapped and used to create a second, single-cell row, leaving the upper right cell empty (rowspan would be a pig to implement and risks borking the vertical alignment). The content could be indented via cellpadding.
Some entries hardcode up to triple-bullet indents are in the user entries and cannot be ignored, i.e. the bulleted format is baked in to these entries. There are bound to be rogue articles with unpredictable variations. Can these do more than mess up the number of bullets?
Can't be clever and crop the daisy chains in the rendering, as that would perpetuate a future nightmare. But is it acceptable to bork the display with daisy-chains and force cleanup of the existing entries?
Note especially the subsidiary template for engine specs, Template:Aircraft specs/eng, as it has list bullet points in it.
Pages with the prefix 'Aircraft specs' in the 'Template' and 'Template talk' namespaces:
| Aircraft specs |
| Aircraft specs |
Parser functions will mangle wikitable syntax and pipe characters (|), treating all the raw pipe characters as parameter dividers. There are several approaches to this, each behaving differently:
((!)) magic word. This 'hides' the pipe from the MediaWiki parser, ensuring that it is not considered until after all the templates and variables on a page have been expanded. It will then be interpreted as a table row or column separator.| .| Description | You type | You get |
|---|---|---|
| Escaping pipe character as table row/column separator | ((!))
|
| |
| Escaping pipe character as a plain character | |
|
| |
When producing table syntax using templates and/or parser functions, a pipe character in a parameter has to be coded ((!)), which uses Template:!, to avoid being interpreted as parameter separator for the template or parser function.
In the case of a conditional table row we typically need code of the form "((!))-newline((!)).. newline" as then- or else-part of an if-construct. To avoid trimming, use a branching template (in this example Template:Ifnotempty) that preserves the newline:
| Code | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|
{| class=wikitable
((ifnotempty|x|((!))-
((!))a
))((ifnotempty||((!))-
((!))b
))((ifnotempty||((!))-
((!))c
))((ifnotempty||((!))-
((!))d
))((ifnotempty|x|((!))-
((!))e
))
|}
|
|
In order to avoid generate extra newlines, the end of one template is put in the same line as the start of another in the above example. You can also comment <!-- cmt --> around the newlines to avoid the same problem, or use empty <nowiki /> tags. See Help:Newlines and spaces for more information.
Alternatively, XHTML table syntax can be used. It is not sensitive to line breaks and lets you avoid branching templates, ((=)) and extra ((!)) hacks.
---
When updating these, synchronise substantial changes to minimise rework of templated articles.
general:
| Type | Country | Class | Role | Date | Status | No. | Notes |
|---|
mil-current:
| Type | Origin | Class | Role | Introduced | In service | Total | Notes |
|---|
mil-historical:
| Type | Origin | Class | Role | Introduced | Retired | Total | Notes |
|---|
role:
| Type | Country | Class | Date | Status | No. | Notes |
|---|
nonstandard:
| Roll your own headings... |
|---|
maintenance (subject to change):
| Type | Country | Class | Date | Status | Notes |
|---|
See also Category:Lists of aircraft by role and Category:Lists of aircraft by design configuration.
The style guide for tables of aircraft in airline fleets is given at WP:ALFC:
Starter examples:
Status can be broken down into In service and Retired, as per mil lists.
Questions:
For example:
Use the Avilisthead nonstandard option to begin with.
If a particular trend emerges, for example lots of similar lists with NATO codenames, then consider adding a new format option.
In the pioneer years of aeronautics, terms such as "airship", "air-ship", "air ship" and "ship of the air" meant any kind of navigable or dirigible flying machine. [airships 1] [airships 2] [airships 3] [airships 4] [airships 5] Dirigible balloons could also be referred to as "flying machines."[airships 6]
Terminology began to change from 1910, for example in 1909 Jane published the first edition of his All the World's Airships, which included separate sections for "dirigibles" and "aeroplanes". The second edition in 1910 kept to the same name while Berriman's book on Aviation, published in the same year, firmly declared an "airship" to be a dirigible balloon and not an aeroplane.[airships 7] Jane's next edition adopted the modern name.
Since then the exact term "airship" has only been used for powered, dirigible balloons, with sub-types being classified as rigid, semi-rigid or non-rigid.[airships 8]
Other variants of the old usage lingered on informally for the next thirty years. In 1919 Frederick Handley Page was reported as referring to heavier-than-air "ships of the air," with smaller passenger types as "Air yachts."[airships 9] Even in the 1930s, the large intercontinental flying boats now competing with the giant dirigible airships were still sometimes referred to as "ships of the air" or "flying-ships"[airships 10][airships 11]
The FlightGlobal archive http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/default.aspx
The Smithsonian web site http://www.si.edu/
The Goodyear Blimp web site http://www.goodyearblimp.com/cfmx/web/blimp
UK usage: In the UK it is customary to title non-rigid airships as "airship", for example "SS class airship". The term "blimp" is slang and is not used in titles by any UK-published reference I have ever seen. So WP:COMMONNAME requires that we use "airship" and not "blimp" in article titles here, too. For example Ege, "Balloons and Airships", Blandford (1973) titles them "airships". He has an interesting comment in the entry for the "The SS or 'Sea Scout' class airships of the Royal Navy", where he writes: "Colloquially they always were referred to as 'Blimps'. Over the years several explanations have been advanced about the origin of this word. the most common is that in the military vernacular the Type B was referred to as 'limp bag', which was simply abbreviated to 'blimp'. An alternative explanation is that on 5 December 1915 A. D. Cunningham, R.N., who designed the SSZ type, flipped the envelope of a non-rigid airship with his fingers during an inspection, which produced a sound that he pronounced as 'blimp'; and that the word then caught on as the nickname for all small non-rigid airships." He pretty much avoids the "B" word everywhere else, though uses it occasionally in quotes when discussing American ownership.
From the Blimp article
A 1943 etymology published in the New York Times supports the British origin during the First World War when the British were experimenting with lighter-than-air craft. The initial non-rigid aircraft was called the A-limp; and a second version called the B-limp was deemed more satisfactory.[airships 12]
Yet a third derivation is given by Barnes & James in Shorts Aircraft since 1900:
In February 1915 the need for anti-submarine patrol airships became urgent, and the Submarine Scout type was quickly improvised by hanging an obsolete B.E.2c fuselage from a spare Willows envelope; this was done by the R.N.A.S. at Kingsnorth, and on seeing the result for the first time, Horace Short, already noted for his very apt and original vocabulary, named it "Blimp", adding, "What else would you call it?"[airships 13]
Dr. A.D. Topping researched the origins of the word and concluded that the British had never had a "Type B, limp" designation, and that Cunningham's coinage appeared to be the correct explanation.[airships 14]
The Oxford English Dictionary notes its use in print in 1916 "Visited the Blimps..this afternoon at Capel." and in 1918 (in the Illustrated London News) "an onomatopœic name invented by that genius for apposite nomenclature, the late Horace Shortt." The B-limp.[airships 15]
Surveillance balloon
Drone Aviation "Blimp-in-a-box"
Barrage balloon
Advertising balloon
A Kite balloon is a tethered balloon which is aerodynamically shaped to be stable in windy conditions.[airships 16] This stability allows it to be used in weather conditions which are too severe for a round balloon.[airships 17]
Kite balloons have been used as observation balloons (aka surveillance balloons) and barrage balloons and more recently.
Early work on "elongated balloons", which later came to be called kite balloons, was carried out in both Germany and Britain from the beginning of the twentieth century. In Germany some success was achieved, although the complex shape of the device added significant weight. The British Army expert and pioneer Colonel James Templer was less successful.[airships 17]
Early in World War I Germany deployed them in large numbers as observation balloons and they quickly proved their worth. In response, the French quickly developed their own designs and in turn deployed them extensively over both land and sea. The British responded more slowly.
Italy deployed kite balloons as barrage balloon in the defence of Venice from 1916 onwards. 1917 saw the launching of German air attacks against England. One of the British defensive measures taken was to raise a line of high-altitude barrage balloons which carried between them a cable from which many more cables hung vertically, creating an "apron" over which enemy aircraft had difficulty in flying. Like their similarly-shaped but powered non-rigid airship counterparts, kite balloons became commonly known as "blimps".
By the end of the war, the use of kite balloons for observation was reducing due to their vulnerability to attack, while they had been widely adopted for aerial barrages by all sides.
Barrage balloons of very similar design reappeared again during World War II and more sophisticated defences based on their use were devised.
In postwar times, kite balloons have continued to be used in a variety of civilian roles.
Most recently, in the 21st century they have seen a revival of interest as surveillance balloons.
An aircraft which obtains its primary lift from horizontal-axis rotors (TENTATIVE F&S the Magnus effect, D h-a allsorts, common usage as a multicopter drone).
"Rotor airplanes An aircraft, which uses the Magnus effect by a rotating cylinder defines a new category besides fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft." - Seifert.
Find a cite for Davey's "Rotor aeroplanes"?
See also Talk:Rotor wing, which knocks on to Convertiplane and Powered lift for starters.
| Rotor/Wing | Aircraft | |
| Cross-flow fan | FanWing | |
| Cycloidal rotor - redirect to Cyclorotor Cyclorotor |
Cyclogyro | |
| Flettner rotor | Flettner airplane Flettner aeroplane | |
| Horizontal-axis rotor | Rotor aeroplane Rotor airplane - redirect to Rotor wing | |
| Magnus rotor | (Rotor aeroplane/airplane here?) | |
| Radial-lift propeller | ||
| Radial-lift rotor | ||
| Rotor wing - main article | (Not Rotorcraft?) | |
| Self-propelling wing | ||
| Thom rotor | ||
| Wing rotor |
Need to verify the rotors under discussion before interpreting the use of "rotor aeroplane". (see paper notes)
Savonius, Sigurd J.; The Wing-Rotor in theory and Practice, Savonius, Finland, 1925.[18]
Foshag, W.F. and Boehler, G.D.; Review and Preliminary Evaluation of Lifting Horizontal-Axis Rotating-Wing Aeronautical Systems (HARWAS), Aerophysics Co., 1969. [19]
*(p.177) "...the propeller without cyclic pitch but with its axis at an incidence to the free stream. This configuration, which Richard claims to be a special and important case of the helicoplane...". (p.182) "As will be seen in section II, cyclic-pitch propellers and "thrust wing" or "radial-lift" propellers are operating on the same principle." The helicoplane, radial-lift propeller and self-propelling "thrust wing" are based on a common principle. That is, the cyclic pitch of the helicoplane is equivalent to the tilting of the other two. Both require cyclic reversal of circulation flow around the airfoil.
Cycligiro produces both thrust and lift.
Zipfel, Peter H.; "On Flight Dynamics of Magnus Rotors", Department of the Army, USA, 1970.
Lots of non-cylindrical rotors, no simple airfoil types.
Seifert, Jost; "A Review of the Magnus Effect in Aeronautics", Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 55, Elsevier, 2012, pages 17–45.
§1 (p.18) "A rotor airplane is defined as an airplane which uses the Magnus effect for lift generation."
§1.2 and Fig.6 (p.21) "This airplane model provides a molded Magnus rotor instead of a fixed wing." [spiral scooped cylinder].
§2.1.4 (p.24): "A circular cylinder is not capable of autorotation. This is a disadvantage as in the case of a motor failure the lift drops with the rotary speed of the cylinder. But there are other kinds of Magnus rotors which are capable of autorotation."
ibid (p.25): "The Savonius rotor appears to have the highest rate of autorotation among the Magnus rotors investigated by Iversen. Miller performed wind tunnel experiments for an irregular shaped cylindrical Magnus rotor, see Fig. 15. [Caption]: "Four-vaned cylindrical Magnus rotor"
§2.1.9 (p.27) "The first prominent Magnus effect application, the Flettner rotor, was mounted with endplates. The idea of applying end-plates to the rotors was suggested by Prandtl in 1924."
2.1.10 (p.29) "Rotors with spanwise disks (Thom-rotor)"are a good choice if the rotor-length is limited by the rotor airplane requirements. However, more power is required to drive the Thom-rotor. In most cases, the Flettner-rotor is the best trade-off..."
§3.2.1 (p. 32): "Rotor airplanes An aircraft, which uses the Magnus effect by a rotating cylinder defines a new category besides fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft."
§3.2.2 "This [spinning-aerofoil] autogyro does not use the Magnus effect, as the rotor airplanes above, by affecting the boundary layer through a spinning cylinder," - i.e. is a spinning aerofoil rotor not a Magnus rotor? But c.f. 2.1.4 above.
"Cycloidal propeller" (presumably also a cycloidal wing, c.f. the cyclogyro) is different class again. Hybrid rotor has both a cylinder and a cycloidal propeller/wing.
The Mortimer and Vaughan Safety aeroplane was an attempt to create an aeroplane which would be safe to fly. Constructed of wood, metal and fabric, its main wing comprised a hollow circular biplane in which the fore and aft sections were hinged together at the tips and the fore section was hollowed out at the back to give the appearance of a tandem biplane with joined wing tips. Seating was accommodated in the rectangular-section fuselage, below which was attached a four-wheeled undercarriage. Propulsion was to be via three propellers, two located in between the wings and one low down at the nose.
Following construction of a model in 1909, a full-size example was built.[mv 1] It was completed in 1910 but it crashed and caught fire on its first outing, and was destroyed. A second, modified example in 1911 also failed to fly. A publicity photograph of it apparently in flight in fact depicts it hung on wires to give the impression of flight.[mv 2][mv 3][mv 4]
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Review articles organisation/hierarchy. The following list is probably not complete.
See also Category:Aircraft configurations.
Aircraft configurations generally: engines, tailbooms, etc.
Review articles organisation/hierarchy, especially leading edge devices and stability/control surfaces.
This list is probably incomplete. It needs checking for more and reorganising: