Talk:Biplane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

"Although the presence of two wings (or three in a triplane) adds lift in comparison with a monoplane, a tailplane is as necessary as in a biplane design."

I think there is something strange in this phrase as the tailplane produce negative lift I would say "a tailplane is more necessary in a biplane design".

Ericd 23:18 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Fixed Vessbot 07:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of a Rotan plane termed 'tandem wing biplane'? Surely a plane cannot be both at once. 145.253.108.22 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links

I do not understand why the link to the Microraptor article, which is a dinosaur, is present in the "See also" section.

I took the liberty of removing it, and adding links to the monoplane and triplane articles.--Empowered 18:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The author is making incorrect conclusions about disadvantages of biplane versus monoplane. Monoplane is (about 30%)[1] less efficient aerodynamically compare to biplane. The aerodynamic advantage of biplane has been known for about 100 years. In fact the Wright brothers knew about advantages of biplane along with many other people. Ashame to the modern aviators. They are not as educated in science as people used to be 100 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.10.123 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

The text of this article had become very incoherent due to sentences and paragraphs etc. being split up and shuffled. I have rearranged the text into something more closely resembling the original order - taking the opportunity to brush up the prose. Hopefully it now makes better sense.

Comments welcome! Soundofmusicals 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The following sentance needs clarification: Excessive amounts of stagger reduce the structural benefits of the biplane layout. The proceeding portion of the article does not detail any structural benifits derived from this configuration, only aerodynamic effects. The preceding paragraph needs to include whatever information to which this comment alludes.

Needs a refix again, this is really weird stuff. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.130.36 (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

This had become bogged down a little with irrelevancies like wing warping vs. ailerons - I have basically rewritten it! The point is that biplanes were common because "braced" monoplane wings (as opposed to cantilever ones) tended to produce aeroplanes that were almost uncontrollable in the "lateral" or roll sense. This was WORSE with ailerons (which is why so many early monoplanes used wing warping). The point was that a control surface like an aileron becomes a "tab" and acts in the opposite sense on a wing that is liable to distortion by load or aerodynamic forces. Not nice.Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)