Talk:Shoulder wing

Reliable sources and definition

Is Datwiki a reliable source? My understanding of a shoulder wing is different: I understand it to be a sub-type of the high wing, not an alternative, and have various books by reputable authors (e.g. William Green) which use the term in this way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commonly used term and so needs a definition somewhere. I've added a second reference as an alternative to Datwiki; its definition is almost identical, though it adds an explanatory ""wing is between the middle and the high position".TSRL (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The datawiki is a direct quote of Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2, which was here as well, but I removed it as a duplicate source. Crane is a reliable ref and Datawiki is published by his publisher, ASA. - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struts

Ther is nothing to stop a low wing aircraft using struts: see, e.g. Piper Pawnee. These are attached from above and are in compression under lift loads, whereas they are under extension when attached below. I've removed (ii) accordingly.TSRL (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it, it was incorrect and unreferenced as well. There are lots of examples of aircraft with high, low, mid, should and parasol wings with struts. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range of aircraft in text and gallery

At the moment the article focusses almost entirely on light aircraft, excluding by implication many shoulder wing types. The text needs broadening. Likewise, I think, the gallery should illustrate the range of types that have this wing position. To explore the extent of usage of the term and the range of types without making personal judgements I searched Flight 1935-2004 on shoulder wing. This returned the limit of 5 pages (100 hits), so I went through the fist 20 and found 15 distinct designs described in this way. These ranged from the Jaskolska sailplane to the Liberator, by way of the Saab Safari, Harrier, Shorts Skyvan, MiG-25, Dornier Do.17 and Lockheed Viking amongst others. Images of a selection of these types, chosen to show the range and each showing the wing position clearly would, I think, be valuable. Not quite sure how to do it, but think its important that each image should be cited to show that a reliable source has called it shoulder wing. Doubtless other types from other good sources, but Flight searchable database seemed a place to start. I'll try with just one such image, to see how to cite it and leave the existing images in place for now.TSRL (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried citing image on the existing Safari pic. Does that seem the way to go?TSRL (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Added Liberator image: suggest we don't need repeated "with a shoulder-wing" on all images.TSRL (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds reasonable and in accordance with WP:V to me! - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forward sweep

Not convinced forward sweep and mid wings particularly go together; the light aircraft (Junior, Safari and Super2) have it but not the rest. Suspect this is a consequence of putting the cockpit ahead of the wing leading edge, rather than at about 1/4 chord; with the engine displaced forward, the cp needs to follow the cg. Bigger aircraft have more mass to redistribute and engines in wings, so no forward sweep for them?TSRL (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - some light aircraft may need a forward sweep to maintain C of G and other types may not. The current wording covers this sufficiently, but still needs a ref cited! - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wing configuration

After having worked on this article for a while and looked all over the place for refs, I am of the opinion that this article really describes nothing more than a minor variation on the high wing configuration. As such it is really a dictionary definition plus a few photos. I really think it doesn't stand alone well as an article and doesn't have much potential to do so. Therefore I propose merging the content into Wing configuration. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having also had a go at this one, I agree that it doesn't stand alone well. I had been thinking about adding a short discussion on how designers choose where to put their wings (sometimes view, but often for aerodynamic and structural reasons) but that would be much easier to do with all positions together. There's a citable piece in Anderson's Aircraft Performance and Design. I'm not sure that a merger with wing configuration would work easily, for the part of wing configuration#Number and position of main-planes concerned does not discuss pros and cons nor give examples, pictorially or otherwise, as shoulder wing does. Maybe there's a case for a "Choice of wing position" (or better name) article, unless that topic is covered elsewhere? If we went that way, perhaps Parasol wing (the only other wing position currently to have its own article) should be merged in?TSRL (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if this one is merged then Parasol wing should be as well. Neither of them amount to more than dictionary definitions. I was thinking that expanding Wing configuration was preferable to having a bunch of unexpandable stubs, but if you think it should go somewhere else I am open to that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the progress made in the last week I think we can put off my merger suggestion and leave the article to stand for a while and see how it goes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

usage and distinction from High

I was pondering this subject by searching through the Flight archive. And came across a few statements of interest

I really don't know if this is useful or not, but I thought "it's good to share". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good information. I have no doubt the term exists, mostly in the UK, more than North America, but I am not sure that the wing arrangement is anything more than a minor variation on the high wing. In the case of many glider designs, the difference is often just the shape of the fairing that covers the wing - if it is flat then the wing is a "high wing", if it is rounded then it is a "shoulder wing". - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add Botha 3 view and Boston side view illustrate the comment made above.

Looking for "high mid wing" I found a table in Flight of British civilian aircraft which gives layout in terms of high- mid- or low- wing. No "shoulder" (or "high mid-wing") listed but there is a "Low mid-wing" which is the "Vickers Viking IB".

The 1942 Flight article notes "There are, in point of fact, subdivisions of the. mid-wing class according to whether it is nearer the bottom or the top"

I'll have to stop looking through the Flight archive - too much interesting info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

In my view (!), three of the photos, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, SZD-8 Jaskółka, and the Short SC.7 Skyvan, seem to be questionable examples of the shoulder-wing type. The first two seem to be mid-wing, while the Shorts looks more like a high wing. Arrivisto (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly true that Jane's 66/7 describes the Skyvan as a "Braced high-wing monoplane." Hardy, in Gliders and Sailplanes of the World which in many articles leans heavily on Jane's describes the SZD-8 as having "mid-set wings". Unless the there are contrasting reliable descriptions, those pic should go.TSRL (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any doubtful examples merely confuse readers and should be cut. Also as per WP:Galleries the gallery probably shouldn't be there at all. - Ahunt (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'd not realised that the refs for the Skyvan and the SZD-8 are both from the citable Flight and do describe the aircraft as shoulder winged. This difference of professional opinion probably tells us as much about the difficulties of using this sub-category as about the aircraft. Maybe some mention of the problem, even when relying on the best authorities, should be included in a separate section. We could include the Skyvan, with its image, as an example.TSRL (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be a semblance of agreement, I'll remove two of the photos, leaving the Skyvan. This correspondence illustrates that the shoulder-wing sub-category is of useful significance only to small aircraft. (You've probably clocked by now that I'm an "ARV-iste"!). Arrivisto (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I have tagged an unattributed quote you have added. That needs to be cited or re-worked. - Ahunt (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked! Arrivisto (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]