Talk:Kline–Fogleman airfoil

Kline Fogleman airfoil
This article is ridiculously biased in favour of KF airfoils making loads of claims that are totally without substance or backup. If these KF airfoils have even half the benefits claimed than why is it nearly 40 years after their invention they have never been used on any real airplane and even in models have never been able to compete against high performance planes fitted with 'normal' airfoils? Also is it not the case that the KF airfoils have performed very poorly in every wind tunnel test (including the NASA tests)they have been exposed to?

Re: proof of their claims, according to KF, the NASA tests were conducted on a literal recreation of the "airfoil" shown in the patent drawings, which wasn't actually a proper airfoil at all but instead a brutal simplification of the KF concept to make the patent as general as possible. (if this claim is true, it's no wonder the NASA tests failed--I've seen the patent drawings and they don't look anything like the wings KF actually use). The most recent study in the article, the Gregorio/Fralioli study, doesn't appear to actually test KF-style airfoils, just a different concept with a big divot in the trailing edge, and so its applicability is questionable. I have no idea about the Air Force study though, as there's no citation. In any case, at this point I think the primary justifiable claim of KF airfoils is their ability to maintain lift in extremely neat-stall conditions, albeit at the expense of efficiency in normal conditions. This is very helpful for paper airplanes and low-speed model planes, but not really an important consideration for "real-world" use so their value for real planes is, as suggested, probably nil.5th earth (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-ordered article to make it more balanced
The text already had most of the points there, both pro and anti, so the balance wasn't obvious till you got to the end. So I take on board what 5th earth says. I added a new first paragraph summary which makes it clear this family of airfoils isn't used in full-size aircraft with people inside. But it is a hobbyist phenomenon.

This raises the point of who Wikipedia's intended readership is. It is unlikely professionals engineers selecting an airfoil for real modern-day civilian or military applications would have Wikipedia high on their list of references. But if you look up KF airfoil in Google you find a lot of mentions in hobbyist forums and many Youtube videos of people making the things. So puzzled people coming across the term in these contexts might want a basic explanation. Istobe (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinstate KFm family image
The image serves as the most complete reference on the types of configurations of KFm airfoils. The reason for it's removal is unclear as stated by the author. If there is a need for a modified variation, it would be useful to the community that the author make the modification rather than remove the image entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:A202:E92D:184B:239B:3E0A (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The image features not only examples, but unsupported *commentary* directly from the originator of the document.Mavigogun (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is your specific issue with the examples and commentary? Feel free to be productive and edit the image before removing the only source of info on the family of airfoils. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Aside from original research issues, the bundling of the images with declarations is beyond the purview of editors to address.  Were the images presented discretely from a published source, text might be appended to them as appropriate.   If there is any such available and noteworthy source, their inclusion here with appropriate commentary might be appropriate.  It is not within our scope to synthesize content to meet the needs of any individual or group of users.Mavigogun (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

These images were developed specifically for the use in this article. Try to make your comment a bit more plain English. With out a full explanation on fix, your complaint and actions are only harming the community. With a full plain English description of the issue and fix, actions can be taken to remedy the image. However since you continue to not be helpful in either fixing the image or making it clear what needs to be changed, the image will continue to be added back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:A202:E92D:184B:239B:3E0A (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the images were developed specifically with this article in mind- which is very much part of the problem.  The image is baldly Original Research; were Albert Einstein still with us, this would not be the place for him to premier his ideas.  There is no supporting citations for the claims made in the image.   The claims made in the image are not subject to revision.   This is not a "how to" guide.  Asserting 'harming of the community' is absurd *justification* for unilateral action and dismissal of the collaborative process, guidelines. I propose the page be semi-protected to prevent anonymous re-introduction of this image.

Mavigogun (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

if you want the image changed, it is better to propose the required changes than to remove the information entirely. With the changes proposed, effort can be made to fix the image/information instead of your silly over zealous attempts to delete the info wholesale. Plenty of images are made for the idea of illustrating a design, such as a gearbox or a particular molecule. So your issue with it being original is silly at best. Your efforts should be spent else where causing less harm thanks.

That being said, since you are clearly too lazy to be productive in this effort, Ill go ahead and try to edit the image to remove any "speculative" claims and instead just show the examples of the airfoil family.

Additionally, I would recommend you link to the specific issue being violated with this image, according to the Wikipedia rules. Citing a rule but not providing a link to the rule cited is not only lazy, but it's plain bad form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not exactly "ground breaking research" given how old the original materials and designs were created. This is however evolving as we learn more about it. The same is true for any other article on this site. I would expect the info to be updated, not removed. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Btreecat raises several issue to address.  This is not a place for personality struggles or insults.   Any wishing to contribute should  familiarize themselves with the basic guidelines for contribution; here is a link to an article pertaining to acceptable content/sources, relating directly to Btreecat's above request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Editing,_creating,_and_maintaining_articles/Documenting_your_sources


 * As to the modified image, the remaining content still needs to be attributed to a credible source- just what constitutes a "credible source" may be read at the linked article above. Simply put, the depicted airfoils could have come from anyone, likewise the associated text; the information must be qualified.   An excerpt from the article:

"'Wikipedia is not the place to document the previously undocumented, to report new discoveries, to publish new theories, or to record personally observed events that may be considered newsworthy. Such content may well be true, but as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, true isn't enough. Information must be verifiable, which means it must be backed by a published source outside Wikipedia. Simply put, Wikipedia must never be the first place that news appears. If a tree falls in a forest and it's not reported elsewhere, then Wikipedia isn't going to report it either.'"


 * Mavigogun (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The user ::Mavigogun needs to stop acting maliciously with this article removing images they do not personally like. The KFm family of airfoils image was created by Dick Kline and released to the public under a CC licences. If you would like additional information, request it. Do not continue to remove images with out putting in the work to clearly identify the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reasons for exclusion of the image are not addressed by your plea, Btreecat.  While the removal of unreferenced assertions from the image were a positive step, the forms presented still have not been attributed to a verifiable source.    The "malicious" label is pejorative and not reflective of the consideration given to this issue.Mavigogun (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Mavigogun

You must have missed the part about media created for Wikipedia. That doesn't have to be hosted elsewhere first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy

Your claims are just coming off at attempted censorship and lacking good faith. Thus, malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:A202:D9ED:710F:AC28:B39 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

From personal correspondence with Dick Kline

″Just to let you know, I created the art work for the KFm Family of Airfoils. It was cleared by Wikipedia after I gave full approval for its use. I worked directly with Mario Gentile from Australia on developing the wiki page. He works with wiki.

I created this art work in Illustrator and PhotoShop and it has evolved over time."

With his permission I edited the image and created a derivative work. I gave permission to Wikipedia when I uploaded the image.

So when are you going to drop your false claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those last additions to this thread (saves me the effort of referencing the forum thread where the material was solicited and profered) -explicitly demonstrating the material in question is origianl research crafted expressly for this venue.  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research


 * Being a namesake associated with a design concept does not wave inclusion criteria for subsiquent work. The attribution of the contentious image seems to make clear it does not meet the publishing requirements for content, but is OR, "illustrate(ing) or introduce(ing) unpublished ideas or arguments".   The presentation of the forms themselves suggests meaning: how is that qualified?  Regard this statement: "step thickness is ideal at 7% or less of chord"- ideal for what quality?   We don't know- nore can we test the assertion, as no authorititave testing of any of the content has been referenced.Mavigogun (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So you drop your copyright issue claims and pivot to the word "ideal" seems like an odd tactic to express your disagreement with the images content.

Best case, you have made a valid argument to raise a question of source material/citation but not close enough to the standard required to delete the image from the article.

If you wish to add a note saying that there is missing research, feel free to contribute back in a positive manor. Removing the image however is not the appropriate action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Selecting_images_for_uploading

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As demonstrated above, the image does not meet inclusion requirements. The author of the image persists in re-introducing original research of his own creation; that the original research was produced in collaboration with a subject of the article compounds the disqualification.Mavigogun (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Which inclusion requirement do you believe is not met? 2001:468:C80:A202:D9ED:710F:AC28:B39 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not a serious question, as the many reasons have been confronted above ad nauseam.Mavigogun (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a serious question, every issue raised has been directly addressed yet you persist in trying to take down this image with false copyright claims. Stop. You reasons continue to shift with out merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved to Kline–Fogleman airfoil. The en dash is preferred in combinations such as this one. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kline Fogleman airfoil → Kline-Fogleman airfoil – The new title shows that is was created by Kline AND Fogleman, not by someone named Kline Fogleman. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 00:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be Kline–Fogleman airfoil then.TR 08:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Commercial use in a toy glider
I came to this article hoping I could find the name of a toy glider I had in the 1970s. It was advertised in TV commercials. It was a small delta-wing glider, maybe 6 or 7 inches long, made out of a sheet of yellow plastic folded to create a Kline-Fogleman airfoil with a step on the underside surface of the wing, and it had a rubber nose weight for balance and a plastic tab sticking down from the belly to hold while throwing it. The package included a diagram of the airfoil with some marketing text about it being tested by NASA.

I remember that little glider flew amazingly well, for much longer distances than any other toy plane I ever had. It seemed to climb on its own when thrown at a slight upward angle, and when thrown straight and level, it stayed aloft longer than one would expect.

If anyone remembers the name of that product, it deserves a mention here. 134.204.220.36 (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Paragraphs 1 and 2 "Applications of the KF airfoil today" present no citations. These paragraphs also present conclusions which make claims that not supported by the previous section. John.edward (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported claims
Paragraphs 1 and 2 "Applications of the KF airfoil today" present no citations. These paragraphs also present conclusions which make claims that not supported by the previous section. John.edward (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)