Talk:Amphibious aircraft

Keep the merge up. Mrld 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
A nonsense! Many seaplanes are not amphibious. It's like saying the articles dog and mammal should be merged because all dogs are mammals. Paul Beardsell 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. It's so silly I am removing the proposal. Paul Beardsell 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the merger sign. I think it has some merit. Some sepalnes and flying boats can take off on land and water. It has plenty of merit. A seplane just doesn't have to take off on water. The same with flying boats. Not all can take oof on both but a lot can. It would be a whole lot better to have one big article on the topic than three smaller articles. I say the merge should take place. Mrld 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The more articles the better. Seaplanes land on water, Land planes land on land. Some seaplanes can land on land. They are amphibious aircraft. Some land planes can land on water. They are amphibious aircraft. Not all seaplanes can land on land. Not all landplanes can land on water. All amphibious aircraft can land on both land and water. I know I have not taught anybody anything except, I hope, this: If there is an argument for merging seaplanes with amphibious aircraft then there are other arguments to be entertained. In particular, the merging of the aircraft article with the amphibious aircraft article. For exactly the same reasons. Bad reasons. Paul Beardsell 13:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't do us any good to sit here and bash one another. Mrld 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Range Question
Isn't range a function of aerodynamic efficiency, cruise speed, engine fuel consumption, and fuel storage size? I read the point that some amphibious planes almost have the same range as land based aircraft. It seems a bit haughty and not based in fact, since the seawind will go 930nm on a single tank, while a piper cherokee 180 (land based only) can only go 550nm on a single tank. consider revising?


 * Yes, you're right: Take two versions of the same aircraft: one amphibious and the other either a seaplane or a landplane:  The amphibious one will be heavier, have less payload for fuel and will thus go less far.  Fix the article:  Edit boldly! Paul Beardsell 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition by landing surface
I am a bit unhappy about the definition of amphibious airplanes as that they can land on "runways, grass or water". Some runways are grass, some grass definitely cannot be landed on. Many amphibious aircraft can land on unprepared surfaces, but if a plane can land on water or an prepared surface like a concrete runway, it would still be amphibious. A better definition would be that they can land on "land or water". I'll take the liberty of changing it. DerGolgo 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete citation request (float planes are slower and heavier than landplanes)
The previous version questioned the statement that a converted landplane will be heavier and slower than its landplane version. This statement is so obvious to anyone connected with aviation that I have deleted it. Does anybody object? Raymondwinn 12:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chalks Airways.jpg
Image:Chalks Airways.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hughes H-4 Hercules
The largest amphibian ever built was the Hughes H-4 Hercules, nicknamed the "Spruce Goose".??? No, I don't think this!--Threecharlie (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what do you think? You haven't said why it's wrong, or what the correct answer should be. - BillCJ (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hughes Hercules wqs a flying boat, not an amphibian. It had no wheels, nor was it ever intended to have wheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.11.223 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Helicopters ?
The lede says "All Amphibian aircraft are ... classified ... as seaplanes" and Seaplane says that term just covers fixed-wing aircraft. Therefore should the first sentence of this article say "An amphibious aircraft or amphibian is a fixed-wing aircraft that ..." or should the 2nd sentence be changed to include amphibious helicopters ? DexDor (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph is awful. It should be completely rewritten.
 * It seems the article should be moved to a title that describes only fixed wing aircraft, since there is nothing about helicopters in the text. At the same time, the article text should be adjusted to match the new title. Even so, the article should acknowledge the existence of amphibious helicopters, more than just a "see also". Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed the lede a bit and added a hatnote referring to helos, but would have no objection to a move as proposed. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviving an old old discussion here but I think I think it's worth working on. On the surface, nothing in the name "amphibious aircraft" limits it to fixed wing aircraft.  But, I can't find many sources that refer to amphibious helicopters as amphibious aircraft.  My guess is this is because most amphibious helicopters are government/military aircraft and since there are few (if any) civilian amphibious helicopters, there's not much as much reason for there to be talk or marketing about them.  Like, if someone were to go to an aviation forum and say they were interested in getting an amphibious aircraft, most would assume "amphibious seaplane" because there's not much need or options for a civilian amphibious helicopter
 * I ask because originally I was going to propose editing the intro paragraph to say amphibious aircraft include seaplanes (flying boat and float plane) and amphibious helicopters. But if amphibious aircraft by and large is used only to refer to fixed wing aircraft, then I'd suggest making that clear in the intro paragraph.  So, something like this:
 * An amphibious aircraft or amphibian is an aircraft (typically fixed-wing) that can take off and land on both solid ground and water, though amphibious helicopters do exist as well. Fixed-wing amphibious aircraft are seaplanes (flying boats and floatplanes) which are equipped with retractable wheels, at the expense of extra weight and complexity, plus diminished range and fuel economy compared to planes designed specifically for land-only or water-only operation. Some amphibians are fitted with reinforced keels which act as skis, allowing them to land on snow or ice with their wheels up.
 * Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That is certainly an improvement. Thanks for the suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll leave this up for about a week or so and if there's nothing against it I'll put up the edit   Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)