Talk:Bolter (aeronautics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suspect this is incorrect[edit]

While I hesitate to correct an actual naval aviator on such a technical matter ...

"The higher minimum airspeed of jet aircraft meant that any aircraft landing on a centreline flight deck would require most of the length of the deck to stop, even with arrestor equipment ..."

If this were true, then how is it that the landing strip on an angled deck carrier is manifestly shorter than "most of the length of the deck ..."? Surely, the length required to stop is the same on either type of deck, given similar arrester gear, and a glance at pictures of angled deck carriers shows landing strips are always significantly shorter than ... most of the length of the deck ...

The length of the landing strip on the angled deck carrier is irrelevant. The relevant factor that aids the operation of jet-powered and other aircraft (in numerous ways) is that the landing strip and the remaining areas are effectively separated, so each can function simultaneously, free from the potential hazards of aircraft recovery. 81.132.242.76 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, to quote from the source used "The generation of jets planned for the 1950s were much heavier than their predecessors, had higher landing speeds and would have needed most of the deck available to complete an arrested landing."
Secondly, "the length required to stop is the same on either type of deck". Correct. However, on straight deck carriers, anywhere up to half the deck length was used for launching, preperation, parking, and storage. With World War II-era aircraft, the other 50% was more than adequate stopping distance. Faster jet aircraft required more than this half-deck to safely stop (Sure, you can stop any aircraft in any amount of distance, providing you have appropriate arresting gear, but it all depends on if you want to use your plane or your pilot again), and if the arresting gear was missed or gave way during a landing, the aircraft would be travelling at speeds that made the standard back-up measure-a net across the halfway line-effectively useless. Angling the deck out gives these faster aircraft more room to stop in (my layman's calculations give American carriers a landing deck that is 75% the length of the ship), while minimising the danger to other flight deck operations and maximising the available space for these operations. -- saberwyn 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word bolter[edit]

This discussion has been moved here from Saberwyn's talk page: User talk:Saberwyn

No, I don't have a reference. I thought that the origin was rather obvious, a horse running off with it's rider being unable to stop it. Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was I that put the {{fact}} tag against the horse racing comment. The term "bolter" has a much older origin than its use in horse racing, I would think. After all, it derives from the word "bolt" as in a cross bow bolt, or in a bolt of lightening. Of these I would think the cross bow reference is the most likely, probably starting as "Shot off like a (crossbow) bolt" whih I am sure you can see would very quickly become "a bolter" a term which only later became used in reference to horses. However, I do not have anything to back this up, which is why I put in the tag rather than changing the comment. In the end, we have to follow Wikipedia's verifiabiity requirement and unless we can support our assertions with reliable references content can be removed. Nick Thorne talk 02:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would think ..." Is this an admission that you don't actually KNOW, or do not have a source, for what appears to me to be no more than speculation. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and therefore it's not unreasonable to expect encyclopaedic standards. You could try for a dictionary definition of bolter here: [1] or here [2] or here [3] or even here [4]. As for your crossbow theory, ... well its just that ... a theory, ... unsupported by any evidence. And if I might speculate a little myself here, who is to know with any certainty that horsey terminology didn't pre-date crossbows. Horse have been around and ridden before humans invented bows and arrows. You have offered absolutely no hard evidence that the term derived from crossbows before being applied to horses. In all probability, it was used in relation to horses long before the (relatively) recent invention of the crossbow. When was that BTW? Middle Ages? 81.132.242.76 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of which may well be true, but then I did not try to insert my theory into the article, did I? OTOH, you chose to insert your theory (quote: "I thought it was rather obvious") about the origin of the word bolter for which we are still waiting for a reliable reference. If you cannot come up with one, I will delete the comment from the article. Nick Thorne talk 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... no, I did not insert my theory into the article. Because as the log shows, I was not the editor who made that edit. I believe it was Ian Dunster. The words are his. Altho' I can understand how some might have jumped to a false conclusion that my IP address might be Ian Dunster's. I chose to add my comments on the Talk page using an IP address, 81.132.242.76, as is my usual practice. However, given the recent difficulties over the blocking of Wikipedia contributions by anonymous IP address users in the UK, caused by the Scorpions and Virgin Killer affair, the only way I can contribute at present is by using my logged-on ID here George.Hutchinson (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC) . So not being the editor who made the original 'obvious' edit. I feel no obligation to provide a source for it. 81.132.242.76 is my IP address, and as I understand matters, the IP address of all non-logged-on UK editors at present. And the substantive matter of the origin of 'bolter', ... well it's not really worth a great fuss, altho' IMHO it may well originate from horse racing, since racing and horses have been associated with human activity (probably) since humans first stood upright and learned to walk. Regards George.Hutchinson (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologise for confusing you with the original editor. Also, I agree that my theory is just speculation - which is why I have not inserted it into the article. In fact, unless someone does come up with a verifiable and reliable source, any comment about the origin of the term is just speculation and so comes under the ambit of the Wikipedia original research policy. Thus, I shall remove the comment from the article. If anyone cares enough to find a relevant source for the origin of the term, then they can add it back in, or whatever the source says. Nick Thorne talk 05:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for the origin of the term at Google Books ([bolter "aircraft carrier"] and [bolter "aviation]). None of the available sources shown to me defines the origin of the term. The only source I can find speculating on the origin of the term is Dark Sky, Black Sea, by Charles H. Brown, which says "I guess in the British imagination, the reaction of the airplane not catching a wire was like a man bolting through a door when caught in an undesirable situation." (p. 107). I'll keep looking. -- saberwyn 11:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verb -- "bolt" or "bolter"[edit]

This article currently says, "When an aircraft bolters on a United States Navy carrier, ...", but the Flight deck#Angled flight deck article says, "... abort the landing, accelerate, and relaunch (or "bolt") ...". Which is the proper verb? Does a bolter bolt or does a bolter bolter? -- Thinking of England (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further I see Tailhook ("... by failing to catch the arresting cables is said to have "boltered.""), USS Forrestal (CV-59)#1968–1975 ("The aircraft boltered ..."), and Modern US Navy carrier air operations#Missed Approach/Waveoff/Bolter ("... or misses all the arresting wires (“bolters”), ...") all support the use of "bolter" as a verb. I will correct Flight deck#Angled flight deck. -- Thinking of England (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: it's "bolter". That's not to say that other slang isn't used. Tradition holds that the most recent pilot to have boltered (in each squadron) has a large tailhook bolt hung from a string over his ready room chair. It stays there as a mark of shame until the next guy bolters.E2a2j (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bolter (aeronautics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bolter_(aeronautics)&oldid=1206362498"