Talk:Flettner airplane

Conventional?

 * "A flettner or rotor airplane is a conventional airplane without wings."

Yup. When I think of a conventional airplane, "without wings" is the first property that comes to mind. -- 217.152.244.162 (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. The article needs more reliable sources to determine how the subjeect is referred to in the literature.Cúchullain t/ c 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Flettner airplane → Flettner aircraft – The colloquial term "airplane" is discouraged, being rather unencyclopedic (and at the risk of sounding slightly POV, amateurish); "aircraft" is the more formal and encyclopedic term. I'm not sure though if, in this case, the term "airplane" might actually be the standard form (even though I cringe at the thought), so instead of WP:BOLDly going, I've tossed it to RM to see what y'all think. --Relisted Cúchullain t/ c 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Slight Oppose - An airplane is a type of aircraft. Aircraft is more of an umbrella term that includes airplanes, hot air balloons, etc.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment is this the FanWing's type of aicraft? -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that the two are the same. But it does look like the FanWing uses the same type of rotor over (or as part of) a "wing", whereas the Flettner has no "wing" and only the rotor.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  07:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. "Airplane" is American usage, "aeroplane" is common elsewhere. Better to use the neutral "aircraft". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like WP:ENGVAR argument, aircraft is not "neutral" as helicopters, and other non airplane/aeroplane flying devices are also aircraft.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR applies when a usage specifically refers to one country or to the version of English in which the article is actually written. It does not generally apply to article titles if there is a neutral version that will satisfy everybody. As WP:ENGVAR itself states: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English)." In any case, technically, an aeroplane or airplane is a fixed-wing aircraft; since the Flettner wasn't, I fail to see why "aircraft" is not entirely accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR also elaborates on strong national ties, this was from American inventors, and called an airplane by the sources, leads me more to using American English. However, it can be argued that this is not a 'fixed-wing' aircraft and is more like a Cyclogyro (Even though the article states: "The cyclogyro should not be mistaken for the unsuccessful and aerodynamically different aircraft designs using cylindrical wings, which attempted to harness the Magnus effect.") - The "wings" on this do not revolve (around a mast), but rotate (on themselves).--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  06:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? From what I can see, the inventors (including Flettner himself) appear to have been German and the aircraft first built in Germany! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing the person that discovered the Magnus effect. He wad German. Flettner was German, he invented the ship. Butler Ames, an American, is the one who first built the flying machine, using Flettner's ship design. It's an airplane/aeroplane/flying machine based on Flettner's ship.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  20:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's weird, since it says precisely nothing in the article about any of that. The only people mentioned are Germans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read up. Sources are provided, and do some additional research.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  23:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If sources are provided and you have knowledge of the subject, why don't you provide some additional information in the article to justify its name? Because at the moment there is nothing to suggest why this is an American topic as opposed to a European one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrator's comment: Before closing we need to see some indication as to what form the sources use.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mild support - I think that "aircraft" is appropriate since the topic is a class of flying machine. However, I do not see the term "Flettner airplane" or "Flettner aircraft" used anywhere. Something like "Cylinder wing aircraft" might be better.
 * The 1931 Popular Science (U.S. magazine) article uses the term "wingless airplane" to refer to a specific prototype being tested and uses the term "rotor aircraft" to refer to the generic aircraft category. The Pilot Friend web site (anonymous source, domain name registered to a person in Ludlow, UK address) refers to the category as "aircraft equipped with cylinder wings". Joja  lozzo  13:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONALITY. Also agree with Necrothesp's comments. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal Bushranger's proposed title wins the Google battle without quotation marks, at least. And see . Then again, it doesn't seem like a very good idea for the category and this article to share a title when the category's scope is broader. I suggest renaming to rotor aircraft. "Rotor airplane" is already in the lede as an alternate name. Compare Google hits (phrase in quotation marks, -wikipedia): 170,000 for rotor aircraft, 19,600 for rotor airplane 6090 for Flettner airplane, and 2050 for Flettner aircraft. Then again, I freely admit my general ignorance on aviation topics, so I'm not sure if some of these rotor vehicles are separate from this concept or not. If this sounds batty, I'll give my weak support for the original proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That could work, I suppose, but unfortunatly "rotor aircraft" is somewhat ambiguous with an autogyro. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, I'm uncomfortable moving an article when there are no sources or any solid indication of how the subject is referred to in the sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarification needed
I'm suggesting we need a clarification on this statement:

"A safety concern intrinsic to the concept is that if power to the rotating drums was lost —even if thrust was maintained— the aircraft would lose its ability to generate lift and remain in flight."

how exactly does the aircraft remain in flight after it loses power? or is this a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Introscopia (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You're misreading the sentence, which is a bit ambiguous. Without power, the aircraft would lose its ability to generate lift and' lose its ability to remain in flight. - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, although I understood this idea, it didn't occur to me this is what the phrase was referring to. Would you agree that some chage is necessary, like "the aircraft would instantly lose its ability to generate lift and become unable to remain in flight." or simply, "lose its ability to generate lift and to remain in flight"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Introscopia (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Loss of lift would not occur "instantly". Lift generated by the rotating drums is determined by their speed of rotation (and the forward speed of the aircraft.) If power to the drums suddenly became zero, the drums would gradually stop rotating so the lift would gradually decrease to zero. Neither the speed of the drums nor the lift would instantly become zero.
 * "Lose its ability to generate lift and to remain in flight" is satisfactory. Dolphin  ( t ) 23:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure the drum is still going to have some inertia, but I wouldn't count that towards the aircraft's ability to generate lift, but anyways, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Introscopia (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as the drum is spinning, the craft is able to generate a certain amount of lift. As the drum slows, to avoid increasing its sink rate the craft needs to fly faster. Dangerous but, as long as normal flight stays low and near a landing surface, not prohibitive. A set of vanes to provide autorotation would be a viable safety measure. Alternatively, the drum may be modified with an autorotating profile, but then it would no longer be a "Flettner" airplane. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Flettner's own proposed airplane
Whether this airplane was ever proposed, or made, needs citing. Whatever one thinks, it is not acceptable to delete a citation needed tag without either adding a citation or explaining why the tag is not necessary. Also, note that the Plymouth A-A-2004, illustrated in the article, was a different airplane. Thanks, all. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It all stems from a misunderstanding. There is no "Flettner airplane". Flettner never planned to make one, he was not an aircraft maker, he knew nothing of aircraft. He'd invented an aerodynamic device, as either a sail or a windmill, and he said that it could be applied to make an aircraft wing too. None of that was a plan to make "a Flettner aircraft".
 * As to where any aircraft made, with a Flettner wing, then there's an obvious photograph of one. It's even claimed to have flown, although that would require sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more than one misunderstanding. Francis Rogallo popularised the Rogallo wing but not all examples were designed by him. Similarly, not all Flettner airplanes need be designed by Anton Flettner. The Flettner airplane depicted falls into this latter class, and was not designed by Flettner as your previous remarks and edits implied. As a matter of trainspotting, the claim that it flew is sourced and is therefore mentioned, but the validity of the claim is not sourced and therefore is not stated in the article either. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)