![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I belive there is a missing scope for model aircraft: it left the pure hobby long ago, as the discussion below indicates. For the german entry the scope was extended to scientific and military use, e.g. military drones, and simulation models. Those historic model aircrafts referenced below would be (scientific) simulation models for study of airodynamics or planned manned aircrafts.
regards PeterD
First line of first page is not true model aircraft have been around since the Phaeroes of ancient Egypt. Even in 1902 Langley flew a steam powered aerodrome across the Patomac river, aeromodelling has been around a long time and it is man who cannot fly. Carlo Godel
Thanks Carlo. I am working on including a link that will pre-date Langly. Chendrickson 01:06 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
Well, the article was first written as Model Airplane. But if aircraft as a whole are to be included, I guess the chane needs to be done.
Antonio Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Martin
I deleted:
"The Hobby is not the most popular among pilots, former pilots, or aviation afficianados. Absolutely not! However, the hobby is also available to those groups of people, and it has been widely popular among babies since its beginning. It is also becoming increasingly popular among sexy women.
Aircraft catwalk models come in a wide array of types and sizes.
" GRAHAMUK 10:37, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The section on static models states that the company Ertl is no longer in business. This is incorrect. Ertl is still very much alive, and producing all sorts of models. You can find new Ertl models at Texaco Collectibles and you can visit cricut cards to find Ertl
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.96.65.14 ( talk) 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
It should be noted that fuel for model glow engines is methanol-based. Nitromethane is added as a performance enhancer. Also, nitromethane is really not very volatile, being much less so than methanol. These days, synthetic oils are the lubricants of choice for most users.
HTH, Steve S
The nitro has a lot to do with timing, too. -- David R. Ingham 01:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
...Out of curiosity, what about gasoline (and diesel) powered engines? I thought I read about large (1/4 scale) models sometimes using these engines (instead of glow.)
...I think I also read something about experimenters installing turbochargers/superchargers on internal-combustion engines, though that's far away from mainstream.
Actually, the air compresses a considerable amount, thus the power source is mixed.... both air AND rubber powered.
No, that is a form of rubber power, the air doesn't compress much.
anonymous -- DOH! You're right, my brain wasn't working when i put that in there, thanks!
I don't think whether they are scale has much to do with which power source they use.
--
You're right. I think choice of powerplant only makes a difference to the ambitious and advanced modeller -- the most-authentic scale-models of jet-powereed military jets (F-14, F-15, F-16, , etc.) use ducted-fans or turbines.
The article could probably go into more detail about model-types and classification. Model aircraft can be classified in many different ways. Control-type is one way -- that's already in the article! Then we also have "application" oriented classifications: "sport", "scale", "trainer" (there're probably more -- should park-flyers and '3D-flyers' count as separate categories?)
Trainers emphasize durability and stability (with the idea that a beginner will crash more often than not), sacrificing top-speed and manueverability. The structure of trainers often accomodate low-speed, low-angle crashes (rubber-band attached wings, rear-mounted propeller, etc.) "Sport" aircraft emphasize aerobatics (loops, rolls, turns, speed), which implies they are less "self-stabilizing" than trainers. "Scale" model, in the above classification, refers to model aircraft which are facsimiles (reduced size) of full-size aircraft. Since scale-models emphasize the replication of an actual aicraft's appearance (and form), scales handle very different from trainers and sports. Quite simply, aerodynamic behavior does NOT scale, and scale-models often suffer from control and stability challenges not apparent with sport models. (And it has to be said, a 1/8 scale-model won't fly anything like the full-size example!)
The flight behavior does not scale, because of the Reynolds and mach numbers. Maybe I'll try to add something aout that.
--
David R. Ingham 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I am the one who said it was steam, but I am not so sure now. Perhaps Sir George Cayley used bent wood or stretched leather?
-- David R. Ingham 01:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes there were important pioneer flights powered by steam and some were before Alphonse Penaud invented rubber powered airplanes in April 1870. (Penaud sold some, which makes him the founder of the aviation industry.) John Stringfellow (mid 19th century) and Samuel Pierpont Langley (turn of the 20th century) are among those who have flown steam machines. The question is whether something else was before steam. (Aviation, the Pioneer Years, edited by Ben Mackworth-Praed, Chartwell Books, Inc.)
I'll try to add some of this to the article.
It can work, like rubber power, because of the scaling laws. It is easier to get speed and range from a piloted aircraft, but it doesn't take much to keep a small, light model in the air. The main problem must have been to get such a light engine to run at all.
In 1894, Sir Hiram Maxim did actually get off the ground under steam power in a "piloted" biplane. (The world's Strangest Aircraft, by Michael Taylor, MetroBooks, 2001)
-- David R. Ingham 20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The old Cox TD I have turns 25,000. -- David R. Ingham
Is there a case for splitting this article into separate static and flying model articles? It's now getting quite long and in reality the two hobbies have very little to do with each other. Graham 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe if it is too long, but scale flying models do connect them. They often don't fly much like their prototypes do. I have one that barely flies. -- David R. Ingham 17:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and transferred most of the RC material over to the
Radio controlled plane page. That way the hobbies have a level of separation, but still show commonalities. I also moved the model aerodynamics to a separate page altogether since it is necessary for both topics and it is really a topic by itself.
--Brian Grayless :30 Aug 2005
Model aircraft and Radio controlled airplane. Maybe we should use one term to avoid confusion? -- Phatmonkey 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice article. I think there is much more to be said about static models, especially with regard to techniques for brush painting, Airbrush, construction, applying decals, weathering and super-detailing.
In the control line section tit says the planes are flown "anti-clockwise" at least in America we say counter-clockwise. Unless it is different elsewhere I think it should be changed. Foil Fencer 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on splitting the page into two down the lines of Flying/non-flying? It seems the page has become unwieldy and flying model heavy. I suggest splitting into two, "Static Model Aircraft" and "Flying Model Aircraft". The latter may need a bit of integration, with this current page retained as a link to both of them. Opinions? AviatonIsLife 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This description of rubber power seems to be based on an over-simplified physical model of the model. Looking at a wound rubber motor, one sees knots and sometimes knots of knots, so things are more complicated than for a bent spring. I am willing to agree that it becomes exponential near the end of the run, but it appears more like constant early on.
Bold texthow old is the glider when was it build who build it who helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.150.76 ( talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I came across this article by accident. It seems at times like a enthusiasts' convention and so is in need of a clean up. As a generalised article on model aircraft, it has too much detail on specific areas. For example there is a whole paragraph on the Jaguar Wakefield aircraft without saying why this one aircraft requires such a detailed description in a general article. The most popular entry level models are described like a consumer guide and rules of team racing are also are discussed in great detail. Ducted fans get mentioned twice. JMcC ( talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed it. It was completely unnecessary. I agree with the first two observations, and fixed the third. The team racing is much to site specific. A model aircraft competition link, perhaps may be best.
As for ===Entry Level=== i am just learning to edit, but should there not be a Piper Cub instead od a P-51.
I would much rather a young man start with a Piper because he saw it pictured as "Entry Level"
A styro P-51 might be ok, but it's still a low wing. I'll do what I can. Maxchillin ( talk) 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Maxchillin ( talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (newbie editor), what is most obvious to me, is that we must observe that radio controlled and static models are two distinctly different things ~ the articles could be much more concise. One model is built for viewing only, the other model is intended for actual flight. Usually with power. I consider that to be a substantial difference, as do the model car, and R/C car buffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_car
I'll do what I can. Maxchillin ( talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure I have heard "static" in this sense, as well as "static display" both together. May not be said every day, but either one is understandable, which is the point of written (or spoken) communication. I favor [[Model aircraft (static)]] for this purpose. Even though hardly anyone says "parenthetical disambiguation," you can still get the meaning from it, especially in this context. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
ARF models ready to fly in under four hours? Certainly not true currently, takes considerably more time investment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.162.36 ( talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=Model_aircraft#Flying_models_for_sport_(Aeromodeling) says:
Presumably "flying dinosaurs" should be changed to " pterosaurs" here, but since I don't know anything about model aircraft that's just a guess.
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The American English spelling of modeling uses only one L. The British spelling uses two L's. As neither aeromodelling nor aeromodeling, are defined in the dictionary, I believe that we should use aeromodelling over aeromodeling. This is due to the frequency of aeromodelling use over aeromodeling across the internet. However, there is a question that remains between the use of modeling and modelling by itself in this work. I opted to use modeling as that is the more common spelling, but it could be argued that we should use modelling in order to stay consistent with the spelling of aeromodelling through the rest of the page. --TheZooenator
we have a red link Flight model. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead currently states that an aircraft model is an "aircraft". However, Wikipedia defines an aircraft as " a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air." Many aircraft models do not fly (and are not intended for flying). I have therefore amended the introduction as follows. If anyone objects, please discuss it here, not simply revert, please: 31.4.242.212 ( talk) 16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
A model aircraft is a physical model of an existing or imagined aircraft. Many are replicas of real aircraft, and are built often for display, research, or amusement. Model aircraft are divided into two basic groups: flying and non-flying. Non-flying models are also termed static, display, or shelf models. The term model aircraft should not be confused with aircraft model.