Talk:List of pusher aircraft by configuration

This article

Is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#List_of_pusher_aircraft_by_configuration. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Article purpose

Critics :
. "rather abritrary inclusion criteria". This list starts from 1930 in order to reduce the list size. It is possible to add aircraft or create an additional list.

. "nebulous subdivision criteria". The proposed subdivision is a technical one, as described in the intoduction (surfaces arrangement and prop drive). The purpose of this subdivision is to give a technical understanding of pusher configurations, rather than a simple alphabetic listing. Anyone can discuss, modify or complete this subdivision.

. "and given the sheer size of the list were it to/when it include(s) all the aircraft of this configuration, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while duplicating Category:Pusher aircraft.". A list cannot include ALL the existing aircraft: a lot of pusher aircraft are not present in "Pusher aircraft" article. So, I suggest to clearly indicate that this list is a non limitative list and given for examples. 89.3.150.181 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then the article is mis-titled as List of pusher aircraft by configuration. It should really be List of some examples of post-1930 pusher aircraft by configuration, excluding ultralights and projects. Seriously though, if this is just supposed to be a list of pusher aircraft configurations and some examples then it should be merged into Pusher configuration and not a separate article. If it is supposed to be a complete list then it duplicates the category and is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see any reason for keeping it either way. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The initial title was Pusher Aircraft Configurations, not List of. My purpose was (and still is) to develop pros and cons of each pusher configuration, and I am afraid to end with too long a sub paragraph into Pusher configuration.Plxd (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can probably continue this debate over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pusher aircraft by configuration. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Tandem Wing

1. Contrary to a common knowledge, a canard has two lifting surfaces. The front plane named 'canard' is a lifting and destabilizing surface, not a stabilizer. The main aft wing IS the stabilizer. As Miles designs, the Rutan Defiant has an important canard area and is still considered as a "canard aircraft". When the front wing is equal ou taller than the aft wing, one can use the name 'tandem wing', as for Quickie and Dragonfly family. But we can write that Miles aircrafts are canards.

2. The Miles M-39 is not a pusher aircraft. Plxd (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

3 surfaces

"Control surfaces or stabilizers at both front (Canard), and rear". A 3 surfaces aircraft : the 'canard' is a lifting surface, not a stabilizer. The tail has a stabilizing role and pitch control surfaces as usual. Flaps on canard are for pitch trim.Plxd (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much *

I suggest to reduce the number of lines with a* because it prevents an easy reading. Plxd (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are very common in wikipedia in aircraft lists eg List_of_aircraft_(0-A)#Airspeed, accessbility software recognises them as lists. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a list article it should be formatted predominantly as a list. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocket powered not included?

The title does not specifically say only propeller powered. Looking at the list, seems like it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy (talk • contribs)

Your question asks for "pusher" definition. In "Pusher configuration" article, pusher means "An aircraft constructed with the engine(s) mounted forward of "rearward-facing" propeller(s)". In The Free Dictionary, we get "a type of aircraft using a propeller placed behind the engine". Following these definitions, rockets (or jets) are not included. Plxd (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

- "The conventional layout of an aircraft has one (or more) wings placed centrally with a tailplane at the rear".

Some aircrafts have very short nose or any nose at all (early biplanes, ultralights), so their wings are not in a central location.

- "In tailless aircraft and flying wings there may be no separate horizontal stabilizer".

By definition, tailless aircrafts have no separate tail. Plxd (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of pusher aircraft by configuration. 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/20120415133620/http://www.caea.info/fr/coll/lutin.php to http://www.caea.info/fr/coll/lutin.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810231850/http://stargazer2006.online.fr/derivatives/eracer.htm to http://stargazer2006.online.fr/derivatives/eracer.htm

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) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)