Talk:Paper plane

History of paper airplanes section

Looks like this article is progressing nicely; in my last edit I caught a few errors, but couldn't figure out how to fix the last sentence of the "History of paper planes" section:

"Perhaps the most accepted version of the creation was in 1909 when Jack Northrop used in the this piece of origami 1930s to test out paper planes so that he could discover ideas for flying real-life aeroplanes."

The sentence falls apart after "when Jack Northrop used...", and it isn't clear what "the creation" is referring to; I presume it should read "the creation of a paper plane", but the rest of it is muddled. -- Hadal 04:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That problem has been solved. :-) [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 00:33, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's moments like these I wish there was a navel gazing award for some articles... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Factual?

The technique of throwing objects made out of paper most probably originated in Egypt, where the first pieces of papyrus were thrown through the air into trash cans.

Maybe this is true, but it sure sounds like someone having a little fun with this article. Is there any factual basis for this sentence? —Bkell 03:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I have researched (paperplane.org) website; it clearly says that. Squash 09:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Donating designs

I'm the owner of one of the pages that is linked (Joseph Palmer), and I'm interested in donating my four designs (Graphics & text) to the wikkipedia, but I'm not sure how this is done. Ideas?

Create a Wikipedia account. Upload a pictures then GFDL them. Squash 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The OmniWing

I wish to submit my web site for inclusion for the purpose of discussion on paper airplanes. The OmniWing platform was conceived in the early 1970's with emphasis on flight stability and glide performance. Several variations presented. See at www.omniwing.com. Performancepaper (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Blackburn's page

The link to Ken Blackburn's page is now defunct. What is wikipedia's policy on this? Fire 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a policy per se, but perhaps if the Internet Archive still has it... 82.139.85.101 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of other paper airplane sites with decent paper airplanes--paperairplanes.co.uk, paperaeronautics.org, etc., for all paper airplane lovers... paperaeronautics.org_admin 11:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World record

Hi. What is the record for the fastest paper airplane ever officially recorded, hand launched or otherwise? Should it be in the article? Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there even is a fastest paper airplane record, since it might be somewhat difficult to measure that. Also, I don't see the purpose for that, especially when you consider that the speed of a plane would probably affect its flight negatively and depends greatly upon the thrower. It does sound like an interesting idea--I'll keep an eye open! -Rohan 24.6.16.156 (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World records for paper aircraft in the Guinness Book of Records revolve around duration and distance travelled, and of wingspan. At the time of writing, paper planes do not appear to have an FAI class - I honestly wish they did ! I also often wonder what it would be - F8, F9 perhaps ? Aside from this, most paper models are gliders. With this in mind, and with the normal problems associated with l/d ratios, models with long ranges tend to fly faster. For instance, the Paper Pilot & White Wings gliders fly at a merry lick, a consequence of their long range flight characteristics - but models in the same series e.g. high performance sailplanes appear to float like gossamer on slightly breezy warm days. The occasions when paper models become powered make the definitions of speed somewhat meaningless, but duration and distance covered appear to be the critical factors in evaluating performance in flight.--Deepshark (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible improvements

I have attempted to improve this article by improving the language and restoring various sections lost through vandalism. However, I think the aerodynamics section is still confusing to those not familiar with the world of paper planes. Looking back to how the article was in 2004, I think the aerodynamics section read much better. Before I take the section back to that older version, what do the other editors think? Astronaut 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Birch ? Who is that?

Having personally met Prof E.H. Mathews, and spoken with him, I take exception to the editor who replaced his name with a spurious 'Prof Birch of Wales' who was NEVER responsible for the PP gliders. If the replacer will identify himself / herself it would be appreciated, and some discussion entered into.

It is possible Prof. Birch was the disseminator of Prof. Mathews glider's in Europe during the 1980's, and some qualification would be appreciated - but the wholesale replacement of names was inappropriate given the circumstances.

Thanks, User Deepshark5

On a similar note: Tim Richardson?

The article mentions "Tim Richardson on his website" (or similar), but nowhere gives a link to this website, or the correct Tim Richardson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.5.50 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Paper Airplane Sites

Does anyone know of some good paper airplane sites? I've tried paperaeronautics.org, paperairplanes.co.uk, and paperairplanes.net so far, but don't know more. Rohang paa (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Back when I was excessively interested in paper airplanes, I searched for these on the Internet and found more than a dozen. You might want to search for something like "paper airplane" on a search engine. Books are a good resource too, I've found about as many airplane designs from book as from websites. This might also be a good question to ask on the Reference desk. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an okay website with a ton of links to paper airplane designs is www.theonlinepaperairplanemuseum.com

Pictures are too big

Way too big, and in the way of the article. Adam850 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section: "Types of paper planes"

The section's material is written similar to an instruction manual (i.e. Wikibooks) rather than encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Please rewrite the section that establishes a neutral point of view. – nh.jg 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

I started a disambiguation page at paper plane (disambiguation), because the hatnotes on this page were starting to get a bit cluttered. Feel free to adjust and revert as needed. --Muchness (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane v Airplane

There is no such word as 'airplane'. The point is that we are not dealing with a different version of English; it's not as if we are talking about the difference between, say 'movie' and 'film'. These are both acceptable as American English and British English respectively. 'Movie' and 'film' are entirely separate words, independent of each other. With 'airplane' we are, in fact, dealing with a word that is simply a mis-applied and mis-spelt which has found its way into everyday American usage. This is the same vein as 'check' instead of 'cheque'. For that reason the word 'airplane' does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.5.216 (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

"Google" didn't use to be a verb but now it is. 'Honour' used to be spelt 'honor' until it was corrupted to be French-like. Language changes and 'airplane' is the unquestionable American word for 'aeroplane'. I wrote this using Safari and the spell check is unfortunately set to American English – 'airplane' is accepted but 'aeroplane' appears with a squiggly red line underneath. Americans never say 'aeroplane'. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"we are, in fact, dealing with a word"" - If airplane is not a word how can you say this? In any case, there are numerous dictionaries and millions of people who disagree with you. I'm one of them and I'm from Australia, where "aeroplane" is the correct spelling. Claiming it's not a word is really up there with claiming the Earth is flat. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just being pedantic. In that context, of course it's a word in the sense that 'jumperstone' is a word - i.e. a series of letters which make up something which can be pronounced. What it is not, is a valid word. This is regardless of what these dictionaries say. I have given my opinion on why we can distinguish this particular word with other differences between American and English. If there is ever a word which is mis-spelt so often that it comes into standard usage, this does not automatically make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.5.216 (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's fixed now isn't it? The article now only includes "Airplane" in the lead (where it is clarified), book titles, and citations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's good to discuss these things; very controversial, if somewhat unimportant, issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.5.216 (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, you've given your 'opinion'. That's POV. Whether you like it or not, 'airplane' is a word in American English. Now we could be here forever discussing whether American English is a valid language, but to them it is, and since there are more Americans than Brits, Irishmen, Australians and New Zealanders combined, they have the right to spell how they want. P.S. Please put four tildes (~~~~) after your post to sign your name. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a name. But, it's not a word; simple as. 78.150.5.128 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are numerous sources supporting airplane's existence as a word, in accordance with Wikipedia's verfiability policy, until such time as you can provide a citation from a reliable source confirming your belief that it isn't, it will continue to be treated as a word. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still going on about this? I'm bored. Or am I board? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.21.193 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can lay this one to rest simply - the article is called 'Paper Plane', in order to avoid this very topic. What say ye ?--Deepshark (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what english speaking country or parlance is "paper plane" the accepted term?

This page should be renamed paper airplane. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source for new words or terms but a reflection of accepted language. 24.136.136.72 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]