Talk:Biplane

Junkers

Did Junkers really do more to promote and develop the monoplane than others? He didn't make the first monoplane, that's for sure. 05:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He did actually design the first practical all metal low wing cantilever monoplane - and it is this type of monoplane that eventually superseded the biplane. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But he didn't do the first monoplane, the first successful monoplane, or even the most common early monoplane. His "first all metal monoplane" did not usher in a new revolution of metal monoplanes, the world continued to use wooden and metal biplanes for many years. Even the article on Junkers does not say he helped end the era of biplanes with his new advanced design. So why are we giving him credit? 07:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The era of biplanes was effectively ended when cantilever wings and all-metal structures became common. Until then biplanes had real structural advantages, and tended to be much more controllable, especially in the lateral plane. Junkers built several aircraft (some of them quite successful) combining the cantilever wing and all-metal construction long before these features were fashionable. As you mention, the rest of the aviation world took a while to catch up. Would it have been so - had (say) the German aero-industry not been so heavily penalised by the 1919 armistice provisions? Who can tell? In any case I think the very brief mention of Junkers here is not inappropriate to this article. Perhaps this should have greater emphasis, not only in Junkers' own article, but also the article on monoplanes?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I read your reference, and it does says that Junkers was important. But it does not seem that Junkers was the sole developer of monoplanes. For example, see Traian Vuia. I've edited some and left Junkers in, but would welcome any changes you wanna make. 02:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Suggestions for improvement

Hi:

The rise and fall of the bi-plane design may make a good measure of the earliest phase of heavier than air flight. Advancements in engineering design and materials choice, aeronautical science and powerplants each contributed to the end of the bi-plane period. I think some reorganizing may make this a very satisfying read. When did the bi-plane period have its sunset? When was its zenith? Ultimately, the design was doomed but how did the design peak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.185.24 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: The article has missed the double-decker of Otto Lilienthal, a true biplane. And the tail-less biplane gliders and powered craft seem to be missing. Definitive theory concerning stagger and separation would seem to be appropriate. Extreme separation of wings? Stacked power parafoil kites are proably part of this biplane concern. Joefaust (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Bay" terminology

Just for one example, the Macchi M.71 is mentioned as a single-bay biplane. The Fairey Fremantle otoh is a two-bay biplane. Could anyone explain what this bay terminology indicates? Also, I'm unlikely to be the only one to wonder, so a little mention in the article would be a welcome addition. Thanks in advance, Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is explained at Interplane strut#Bays. Is it not linked or mentioned in this article? I thought it was, if not it needs fixing. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid overlinking, would it not ne better to include a short explanation of the term in this article.TheLongTone (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The current explanation was very confusing, and the Nieuports are obviously not "two bay". I moved the section further down, and rewrote it to the best of my understanding, replacing the examples with better links. Also I added the long needed link to Interplane strut#Bays, although it really doesn't offer any additional information. --BjKa (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I also added some illustrations. Maybe the whole matter should be moved to the Interplane strut article, but it seems that many readers (like myself) who click on a "bay" link in an ariplane article are sent here. --BjKa (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Worth including?

Arrivisto has added some content, easiest to identify in this diff, which I think is uninformative. This article is not just a fan list of types but a discussion of the biplane as a wing configuration. As such, I find these additions gratuitous and distracting. Arrivisto has chosen not to use the recommended Be bold - Revert - Discuss cycle but to counter-revert (the above diff actually shows that action). Any comments would be welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that sufficient examples of biplanes, sesquiplanes etc., each with a photograph, should be listed to allow readers to consolidate their understanding of these configurations. However, peripheral information such as “despite its streamlined nose and spinner the aircraft was not effective and it did not enter production” has no place in this article. Arrivisto’s information appears to be mostly unsourced so that is another reason why these extra examples should be named but without peripheral information. Dolphin (t) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If text or images are indeed "peripheral", by all means consider editing (but do try to avoid knee-jerk deletions); and to suggest that adding the Ranger biplane to a list of kit biplanes turns the article into a "fan list" is absurdly subjective and rather insulting. The SE5b reference is useful as it shows that the adoption of a sesquiplanes layout was not necessarily a good idea, hence "did not enter production". The accusation that my edits are "unsourced" is hardly fair, when both the SE5b text and the Sherwood Ranger text are linked to their respective WP pages. Arrivisto (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no list of kit biplanes in the article nor any call for one, the Ranger has no outstanding feature as a biplane and adds nothing except clutter. Nobody is suggesting that the sesquiplane is "better than" the equal-span biplane and discussing a failed prototype (S.E.5b) again adds nothing.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont see the relevance of adding the words and image about S.E.5b, the image and description doesnt appear to make any mention of wing configuration - I would support not adding them. Not sure adding yet another type to the ultralight list gains any value, in fact the list is probably to long as it is (and why a red link is given as an example is a bit of a mystery) - Unless fundemntally different configurations then the list should be pruned rather than added to. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This page is about biplanes as a configuration. Details such as spinners and power sources are completely irrelevant here. Likewise, images that don't show the configuration in question, such as the one of the S.E.5b are not appropriate at all. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

More than sufficient would be "Another sesquiplane was the (unsuccessful) SE5B". Even this does not seerm to add much value. The spinner and engine are indeed utterly irrelevant. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

As an obscure and failed subvariant of a biplane that had identical upper and lower wings, there probably isn't a worse example of a sesquiplane to be found anywhere. If one is desperate for a British example, the Siskin is a far better choice, but there is no need of a laundry list of examples especially when there is an entire category just for sesquiplanes. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Biplane with no braces, struts etc.?

I am wondering if anyone ever built a biplane with two sets of monoplane wings, so no struts, wires etc. I am not saying such a thing would be efficient though. Middle More Rider (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the article? The Zeppelin-Lindau D.I is one. Jan olieslagers (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that was interesting to read about. Middle More Rider (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We have quite a few interesting articles. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)