Talk:FanWing

advert

Wow, what a great advertisement! Er, I mean, encyclopedia article. Where to begin transforming this into something with NPOV? The mind boggles. —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a go now. BP OMowe (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fan wing

I seem to recall one of the XV-planes having lift-fans in the wings in the 50s or 60s. This article is mainly devoted to a concept for a specific product called the FanWing which is/was in development, but so far has produced no tangible design. I recommend it either be renamed (possibly Fan wing or Fan-in-wing]]), or merged in with a more appropriate article on vertical lift. Either way, it still needs a LOT of work! - BillCJ 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a rename, but to what, I'm still not sure. Despite the project's name, this really isn't a "fan", but more of a squirrel-cage blower. And, as far as I can tell from the offical website, it's at best a STOL aircraft, rather than VTOL. I think there's an article around somewhere on blown flaps, and this is a similar concept. One thing is for certain, though, there are plenty of references that meet WP:V. I'll try taking a stab at this over the next few days, Bill, if you'll keep me in line! Akradecki 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading it, I think we need to focus the article similar to your work on the Bell-Boeing Quadrotor, esp. since only one company is involved here. Given that "FanWing: is also the name of the company, I doubt that FanWing FanWing would work as the name of the article, so I am fine with leaving it as-is. Since the page describes the concept as a "horizontal-rotor" aircraft, does that mean this page falls under the Rotorcraft Task Force? I'll try to make the article conform to "aircraft" page standards sometime this week (Related content, etc.) - BillCJ 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I think a picture would improve this article a lot. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The first public flight demonstration of two FanWing unmanned prototypes is planned for the annual international ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems Event, in Wales, UK, on June 25 and 26, 2008 [1]. If anyone can go and take GDFL pictures we could then include them here. Lumos3 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A picture has been added in this diff. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fan wing and FanWing

I think the concept fan wing should be separate from the company FanWing articles. The physics of fan-wings should be in the concept article, while the prototype and company can be in the FanWing article. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is barely more than a stub as it is, splitting it would just look silly. Wait until it gets too big to be a single article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If the article had significant cited info about the company a split would be justified so that the company article would have company infobox, categories etc. If you created a company article out of what's here at present it'd soon be tag-bombed as unreferenced etc. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I vote no as well. The concept for the FanWing is the intellectual property of Patrick Peebles an employee of the company that builds this particular aircraft. FanWing is Peebles' name for this design and his company.-- Brothernight (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Link Rot

The link to the AOP article titled "Could FanWing Go from LSA to Heavy Lifter?" does not work. This is the working link: http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2011/111122could-fanwing-go-from-lsa-to-heavy-lifter.html I would have changed it myself rather posting a notice here, but it seems that I do not have permission to make or modify links.-- Brothernight (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brothernight. I fixed the link, it was just missing a space between the url and the text legend, so the first word of text corrupted the url. You can edit it just like any other page content, because that is all it is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FanWing. 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/20071001131015/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article133336.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article133336.ece

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed or rotary wing? Experimental only?

The lead section says this device is for a fixed wing, but the History section says it is for a rotary wing. It then says "As of December 2018, only unmanned development prototypes have flown." Do both applications exist? Is the statement that it has been used only for unmanned prototypes true for both fixed and rotary wings? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead does not describe it as a fixed wing as such, as you claim, but explains that the fixed wing and rotary fan work in conjunction. It is a hybrid device, having both a fixed and a rotary component to the wing, with their interaction creating the lifting force. Since the rotary action is essential to maintain lift, it should probably be classed as a form of lifting rotor. The problem is partly that, being a new and fringe technology, reliable sources classifying it are hard to find. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I notice you removed "unmanned" from the lead. As far as I know, that is accurate, and seems important for readers to know. I also think it is very fair to refer to something that has never flown in a manned flight as "experimental", another word you removed from the first sentence. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I made it explicit that "only experimental models have flown". Models are unmanned, just as the sky is blue. Mixing the technical description with a status summary in the same sentence is not helpful, in my humble opinion. That is the kind of thing that paragraph breaks are for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to experimental models or experimental models? As far as I can tell, manned prototypes are often called "models" – e.g., the Rutan Model 27. Generally, different types of aircraft produced by the same producer are called "models" – e.g., the List of Cessna models, in the same sense as Chevelle and Camaro are automobile models. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "fixed wing", in the history section it refers to the use of a cross-flow fan "as a rotary aircraft wing". The article about a rotary wing or rotary aircraft (i.e. Rotorcraft) says it is about aircraft that use "rotor blades, which generate lift by rotating around a vertical mast". That is not what this cross-flow fan is being used for. I don't think it is accurate to say the cross-flow fan is being used "as a rotary aircraft wing", which is what the article currently says. This is not a "rotary aircraft" in the ordinary sense of that term. The "See also" section also refers readers to "Rotary-wing aircraft", and I don't understand why, since I don't think there is anything relevant in that article. (Also, I did not say the lead section "describe[s] it as a fixed wing"; I said the device "is for a fixed wing", emphasis added.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I write that "Models are unmanned, just as the sky is blue" and you ask what kind of model I mean. I just told you. Please stop walking around your thoughts and say them straight.

As for the rotor/rotary bit, recall that I previously explained to you that "The problem is partly that, being a new and fringe technology, reliable sources classifying it are hard to find." Specifically, the term "rotary wing" became defined in formal standards as the vertical-axis type simply because that was at the time (and remains) the only type being contemplated for production use. The many other rotary lifting device have never been formally classified, though there is a fair amount of literature on them; some of the more useful studies are cited in the Rotor wing article. Terms such as "rotary aircraft" may not be formally defined in the way that "rotary wing aircraft" is, while apparent synonyms such as "rotor wing", "rotary wing" and "wing rotor" may be used by different authors to distinguish various different features. Consider whether "rotary aircraft wing" might mean a wing for "rotary aircraft" or a rotary type of "aircraft wing" (c.f. the "model" ambiguity).

The fixed wing of the FanWing is not a lifting wing in the conventional sense, therefore the FanWing is in no sense a fixed-wing aircraft in the conventional understanding of the term. Without the spinning rotor present, the thing would not generate noticeable lift and would become just a drag-creating horizontal surface.

Re. "see also", I would advise you to see also the see also guideline; what you are complaining about is exactly what the section is for! The link to Rotary-wing aircraft is in there precisely because it is tangential and not directly relevant to the article topic.

Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC) [updated 07:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)]

I am merely trying to point out the confusion that I believe the article induces. I think your change to "experimental drones" is an improvement. I still think the "use as a rotary aircraft wing" is confusing, since I think I can be pretty confident in saying that this does not fit the meaning that most readers would assign for what a "rotary aircraft wing" is. It certainly confused me. Having a link to "Rotary-wing aircraft" in close proximity to that description adds to the confusion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)