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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
The contents in the commercial aircraft article is essentially referring to the same type of aircraft variant, but some information there is salvageable to rule out a complete redirect. A suggested merge is the most reasonable thing to do. ╫ 25◀RingADing▶19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Not rectified seven years later. The 707, which literally changed the face of global airline travel, is mentioned only in passing as an example of this that or the other.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should explain why modern airliners are so uniform. Today tail-engined planes (like DC-9 or Tu-154) become ever more rare. Almost all new designs are twin-engined, low-wing, engines in underwing pods, at least both Airbus and Boeing do this. We have a boring degree of uniformity!
The lack of aerospace diversity is suprising, for example the modern automobile industry has so much variation in car body form, position of engine, drive types, etc.
It looks like airliner-making is in stagnation, we have engineering advances (new material types used mainly), but we have zero scientific advances (new shapes and new propulsion types).
Uh, if someone can find a published, reliable source about this - which I sincerly doubt - then it can be added. But until then, all of this is OR, conjecture, speculation, and even a bit silly. First, where are the engines of the CRJ and and ERJ families? The nose?? These are jet airliners. Second, remember the Boeing Sonic Cruiser? Nobody wanted to by it, but it was a serious proposal by Boeing. Boeing is also playing around with the BWB design. So there is diversity out there. Finally, the reason the twin engine, pod-under-wing design is common is that it's a proven design for over-100-set designs. Both EMB and Bombardier are using it for there larger designs, the E-Jets and CSeries, while the smaller MRJ and ARJ are both using tail-mounted engines. As far as propulsion goes, prop-fan designs are being considered again, as are geared turbofans. Turbofans are still getting bigger and bigger, and the standard sizes are becoming even more efficent. As far as your comparison to automobiles, most still use 4 wheels, one at each corner. Most engines are front-mounted. Three-wheel designs aren't very common any more, and I have yet to see a 5-wheel design. There have been a few rear-engine designs, and even fewer mid-mounted. But where are the side- or top-mounted engines?? We need more diversity in automobile design! Let's hear it for a 5-wheel car with top-mounted engine! - BillCJ (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the An-2 is not appropriate in this article: it was never meant as an airliner, though it may occasionally have served the role. The An-2 really belongs to general aviation. Lacking sensible replies, I intend to remove it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps new aircraft designs such as blended wing body aircraft and other airplanes with other improvements can be mentioned in the article (new article section). Notable are:
I have added a graph which shows the dramatic development of the capability of long range airliners. It uses figures from the Wikipedia pages for those aircraft
provided they are relevant, exceptions are stated below..
The graph starts in the 1930s as that is arguably when the first aircraft that we would recognize as modern airliners appeared. All aircaft are the first model of their type where possible. There is no point in using a 747-8 as an example of what a 1970s aircraft could do. It is not always easy to find exactly comparable figures, but the aim is to show the large contrast between decades not subtleties between similar aircraft. This is only about the most capable long range aircraft of their time so several notable aircraft like the DC10 and Tristar are not included as they are medium range aircraft. Not all the relevant aircraft are shown, only enough to make the point or the graph gets too cluttered. Concorde is not shown because its speed causes all the other aircraft to bunch up at the bottom of the graph!
Cruising speed is shown rather than maximum speed as that isn't really relevant. The figures are comparable. That for the A380 comes from www.koreanair.com/local/na/gd/eng/au/of/au_of_10.jsp.
Range with maximum fuel is shown rather than range with maximum load. On the Wikipedia pages it is not always completely clear which is referred to. That for the DC3 comes from www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=188 and for the A380 from
www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/brochures_publications/aircraft_families/Airbus-Family-Figures-Mar13.pdf.
The 747 page states that it is range at Maximum Take Off Weight, but www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.page has the same figure and calls it "Maximum Range".
The choice of how to measure passenger capacity is debatable. Most older aircraft only quote one figure - perhaps since flying was only for the rich, all seats were first class seats? Nowadays two classes is more usual, perhaps three but seat pitch varies between airlines and some seats are more like cabins. It is difficult to compare figures so it shows single class. The figures are comparable.
As for the seating I would put the figure if the aircraft is populated with 100% economy class seats. I have also correct the typo in 747 :-) --JetBlast (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much the cruisespeeds that you used. F.I i doubt that the 707 and DC-8 cruise faster than a 747. Furthermore, as said the A380 is shown with max cruise speed of M.89. I don't know exactly what the normal cruising speed is, but probably M.85. so your graph is incorrect. Rgds Saschaporsche (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Airliner/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Sadly lacking. Most sections ar just a few lines, the descriptions of the different sizes being mainly a listing of aircraft in that category. Need a lot of history to be added. Start -class.
Last edited at 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 06:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Airliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
@Marc Lacoste: Greetings! Regarding this revert: regardless of how long it's been in the article, this is the sort of material which is excluded by the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, since it concerns future events of the type for which there are plenty of reasons to expect they will not come to pass. Exhibit one being the current pandemic, which I just heard people on the radio saying may depress air passenger volume for 4-8 years, and which has already shut down some manufacturing. -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: Hi, WP:CRYSTAL makes the difference between original research speculation (It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses) and forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. This is exactly the case here : the forecast come from the perfectly reliable Aviation Week & Space Technology, while the original research speculation come from you when you state "there are plenty of reasons to expect they will not come to pass". I agree with you opinion, but as editors, we should not rewrite history (the forecast made in Dec 2018 was accurate in reporting what people sought then) but update it with a new reliable ref. Many are available in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on aviation. I made the appropriate changes by changing the tense of the prediction. Please add an updated reliable source on delivery projections, but please avoid deleting WP:reliable sources. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the future is uncertain is not original research, it's the reason we have a policy against documenting the future. Even if these forecasts turn out to be completely accurate, I don't think they have any place in the encyclopedia. Sharing numbers which have a disclaimer saying they might be completely wrong is even worse, and does not seem like it's informing anyone of anything useful. There's no particular reason not to just wait until these sales have been made, and report them as history rather than projections, which is what we do for economic statistics generally. There isn't any truly reliable source for those, as there are always unexpected events in the economy, and projections themselves change the market as parties react to them. I expect you won't agree, so I'll leave it up to additional editors' opinions. -- Beland (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unexpectedly (or not, if you read me above), I agree with you! Projections are just that: projections. They describe the state of mind of the industry at a point of time. But the optimistic forecasts are now history and should not be removed just because the outcome may change, but put into perspective with contradicting, updated forecasts with reliable sources (see relevant Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_aviation#Aircraft_manufacturers).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting that you wouldn't agree to remove the forecasts, which it sounds like you aren't. Saying that a prediction about the future is "history" because it was made in the past is an argument that could be applied to any statement about the future, and so would render meaningless any policy about not including information about future events. It's not just COVID-19; those predictions also don't take into account the Saudi-Russia oil price war, the real price oil will actually be in 2022, the hurricane that destroys Disneyland, the eruption of an Icelandic volcano in 2023, Trump Trade War II in 2024, the rise of Tesla Avionics that built electric planes and put Boeing out of business, the adoption of plane-building robots that resulted in 100x cost reductions, and the Linux Y2K crash in 2038. They can in no way be relied upon, and Wikipedia is not a business magazine that publishes such speculation anyway for the benefit of people who need to make business decisions based on them. In five years, no one will care what these projections were; they are not important to the history of the industry, and past predictions of then-future and now-past deliveries are not mentioned for that reason. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:crystal is not about not forbidding information about future events, but unreliable sources for predictions. Your examples of unpredictable events are good examples of what should be avoided according to wp:crystal. But good, informed predictions by knowledgeable people are helpful, even when they did not realize, to help the reader understand what has changed since it was forecast. I still retain some press from the past predicting our present, and it's enlightening: what happened, and what did not?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the material includes company press releases and small-press echoes. As shown, it is outdated SPECULATION over what might have been from an opaque company method, not open to the exception of CRYSTAL for events that are themselves notable and almost certain to take place. But these projections just weren’t really notable events and space given seems UNDUE to the article topic Airliner. And even without COVID, these were never very credible numbers given the technical issues of planes and production at the time. If there is a desire to show COVID involvement, try elsewhere in a Covid article or Airbus article. Anything here should be little or nothing, and should show *factual* production drop-off or note shutdowns due to stay-at-home orders. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that seems like a straightforward third opinion. Since it's been open about a month, I closed the RFC and dropped the section. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
@Marc Lacoste: Why are you objecting to the removal of the Forecast section again? Though these are updated projections, they are just as unlikely to be accurate as the previous set the RFC above decided to remove. And it's certainly not appropriate for a single editor to take action contradictory to the decision of an RFC. -- Beland (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
