Talk:Elliptical wing

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Rounded tips[edit]

I don't believe the 109 family has ellliptical wings. An elliptical wing is not the same thing as rounded wingtips which is what 109's have. Spitfire and P-47 are the best known aircraft with elliptical wings. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ellipse wing?[edit]

What about these?

That's an annular wing, which is a completely different animal. Nibios (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Is this topic notable? The elliptical lift distribution probably is, but an elliptical planform is not the way to achieve that. Rather, it is often an accident of design, arising arbitrarily from other constraints - for example on the Supermarine Spitfire it was a late-breaking bodge to make room for an extra machine gun on each side. If its notability cannot be verified, then this article should be AfD-ed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, not the most heated discussion I have ever got involved in. Anyway, I now think there is enough reliable source material around this topic to make it notable (note to self: go and dig some of it out). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that elliptical lift distribution and constant downwash are very significant in the science of fixed-wing aircraft, but elliptical wing planform is less so. Something that has long puzzled me is that so many authors write about the aircraft that supposedly have an almost-elliptical wing planform. Clearly they overlook that the presence of a fuselage represents a significant departure of the planform from the elliptical.

I also might be able to find something reliable and published to cite as a source. Dolphin (t) 11:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes the association between theory and practice is often tenuous. The fandom aspect appears based more on aesthetics and folklore than good science, but in the end the fact that so many folks do write about it means that we should too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

Why this is said like this "...the external wing outline of the excellent 1930s era Mitsubishi A5M carrier fighter was almost identical to that of the Spitfire, in spite of being brought into service well before the Spitfire was"? It implies that the Japanese copied the British, being the Japanese a previous design? English not my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.152.222 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point, even though it is not clear what the author of that sentence was trying to imply. In addition to that Wikipedia is not about opinions, but facts or information from reliable sources. Thus, because that statement is not backed by a citation, we can delete it.--Gciriani (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]