Talk:Human-powered aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Hi,

There is something missing here, what about Man-powered Airship ? See : http://www.zeppy.org/news.htm and http://papalima.free.fr/motoballon/gazairship/Gazairship.htm Astirmays 10:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Vio?

The section about "Royal Aeronautical Society Human Powered Flight Group" appears to be copy/pasted from http://www.raes.org.uk/cmspage.asp?cmsitemid=SG_Hum_Pow_Home

I don't have a chance to fix it now, but I will when I get back. (GoAirForce 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Redundant statement

(Note that 'man' in this context refers to the species and not to the gender. The official term for the aircraft used is 'manpowered aircraft'.[1])

Isn't this uneccesary to mention? Debolaz 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it should be changed to "human-powered flight" to go along with human-powered transport ? Rootneg2 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official term is 'manpowered aircraft' so we can't do that. Debolaz 11:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have deleted it, I bet someone who is trying to be politically correct, tries to move it to "Human powered flight". Let's see JMcC 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The official term is 'manpowered aircraft'" Huh??? What makes it official? Human-powered sounds like a more accurate description to me. Maybe someone is going overboard in an attempt to be politically incorrect.Gr8white 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because that's the term everyone uses. Debolaz 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone???? What about the Royal Aeronautical Society?

I did a Google search on "man-powered flight" and "human-powered flight" - 893 hits for the former, 26,100 for the latter - so clearly your contention that it's the term "everyone uses" is BS. Gr8white 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I must've had a typo in my original Google search. Seems you're right. My objections against renaming the page are withdrawn. Debolaz 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support renaming this to HPA. It is a much more common name in the research field. (GoAirForce 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Propose Move (Human-powered Flight)

I propose moving the article to Human-powered Flight for the following reasons: 1. It's a more accurate description of the subject 2. It would be consistent with the entry for "Human-powered transport" which contains a section "Human-powered aircraft" 3. It is a much more widely used term for the subject as revealed by a Google search

If anyone has any serious objections and valid reasons for not moving please post them here. If not I'll go ahead and move it. Gr8white 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I object. The official (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) description of this subject is manpowered flight. See [1] JMcC 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That site mentions manpowered aircraft but I don't see any reference to man-powered flight, which is the title of this article. In fact ALL the external references (the ones in English) refer to human-powered flight, not man-powered flight. So I don't see that as a valid reason.

In any event, I don't see what bearing the terminology that particular group chooses to use should have on anything else, least of all the title of a Wikipedia article. Clearly, the more widely used and accepted terminology is "Human-powered", so why not go with that? Gr8white 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That particular group" just happens to be the worldwide body for any type of achievement in aviation. They are not just anyone. (Sadly they did not use a hyphen in 'manpowered'.) There are precedents for the less common name being used in Wikipedia. Type in 'soccer', the common name in the US, and 'Association football', the correct name, you are redirected to Football (soccer), which no-one calls it by! I suppose I am fighting a rearguard action against the petty PC re-naming of anything with 'man' in it. JMcC 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a rear guard that wants to rename everything with 'man' in it, I'm certainly not a member of it. If there was an established precedent for "Man-powered flight" I'd be totally in favor of retaining the name. I'm suggesting replacing terminology that virtually nobody uses (not even the sporting aviation group mentioned above, which uses "manpowered aircraft") with what almost everyone else does. Not sure why that's considered being "politically correct". Gr8white 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the stats. "Manpowered flight" gets 424 hits in Google,"man-powered flight" gets 859 hits (with and without the hyphen), and "human powered flight", gets 24,700. Coincidentally yesterday I read David Crystal's book about the futility of attempts to stop changes in the language, so I have to wave the white flag. Move it if you wish. JMcC 06:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with gr8white. Please move the article to Human powered aircraft. KVDP (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 75.208.160.16 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?

I'm confused. Where should the edits now at Human-powered aircraft be merged to? I just want to make sure that we want this article merged to that location. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yesterday, I moved to human powered flight-page to human powered aircraft. It seems to me that there was a consensus on the talk-page and that it was thus approved. Please revert my edit. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to me that there was consensus to move the page to Human-powered aircraft also, but KVDP moved the article by copy and pasting, which is not the appropriate way to move a page. Since we're moving a page over to a redirect, we don't need to keep the redirect's history. We just delete that page, along with it's history, and move the other page over. The page that we are moving is the page whose history we need to preserve. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checking. I've merge all the article history to that title. Thanks for flagging the cut-and-paste move! Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy

First the article says "Under the auspices of the Society, in 1959 the industrialist Henry Kremer offered the Kremer Prizes of £50,000 for the first man-powered aeroplane to fly a figure-of-eight course round two markers half-a-mile apart." Later, "In 1967 Kremer increased his prize money tenfold to £50,000, for no-one had even attempted his challenging course." Presumably the prize was initially £5,000? Muad (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gossamer Condor

Shouldn't there be a link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gossamer_Condor 12.117.131.10 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)JH[reply]

There is. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Effect

Has one of these vehicles achieved any height which would obviate ground effect? The aircraft I have read about seem to skim just a few metres above the ground/water, so is there a case for mentioning ground effect in the article, even for adding the category "Ekranoplan" (or whatever the correct category would be)? Has anyone ever towed an HPA to/launched one from any significant height, which was then maintained by mechanical effort? --TraceyR (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another German attempt at the same time at the HV-1 Mufli

Folks, I thought you might find this article of interest from the July 1934 issue of Popular Science. I have a feeling its frame is made of balsa wood. I am posting this just as trivia as I know it would over load the article if every attempt was posted. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the HPA of Engelbert Zaschka from Germany. --Feuerspiegel (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name - bifurcation of rotorcraft from fixed-wing and all others

The article should be moved to Human-powered fixed-wing aircraft, since there is another article called human-powered helicopter; compare with (powered) Fixed-wing aircraft which avoids the airplane/aeroplane naming controversy. If nobody objects, I'll make the move sometime.Nankai (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The better solution, I think, is to mention that a few not-very-successful efforts have been made in the area of man-powered helicopters, and prominently link to the helicopter article. That is, host a summary of the helicopter article within this one, without changing the name of this one. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed-wing aircraft is a sub-article to aircraft, and while human-powered helicopters have been attempted the majority of the work on human-powered flight has been in fixed-wing aircraft so (while the article is not named as such) fixed-wing endeavours dominate the text. A couple of sentences on the human-powered helicopter should be present in this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is outdated. Rotorcraft should be discussed in human-powered helicopter not in this article. 75.208.160.16 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human-powered aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202160016/http://www.geoffreylandis.com/monarch.htp to http://www.geoffreylandis.com/monarch.htp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]