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:
Now you have deleted it, I bet someone who is trying to be politically correct, tries to move it to "Human powered flight". Let's see
JMcC19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"The official term is 'manpowered aircraft'" Huh??? What makes it official? Human-powered sounds like a more accurate description to me. Maybe someone is going overboard in an attempt to be politically incorrect.
Gr8white18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Everyone???? What about the Royal Aeronautical Society?
I did a Google search on "man-powered flight" and "human-powered flight" - 893 hits for the former, 26,100 for the latter - so clearly your contention that it's the term "everyone uses" is BS.
Gr8white03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Heh, I must've had a typo in my original Google search. Seems you're right. My objections against renaming the page are withdrawn.
Debolaz23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I propose moving the article to Human-powered Flight for the following reasons:
1. It's a more accurate description of the subject
2. It would be consistent with the entry for "
Human-powered transport" which contains a section "Human-powered aircraft"
3. It is a much more widely used term for the subject as revealed by a Google search
If anyone has any serious objections and valid reasons for not moving please post them here. If not I'll go ahead and move it.
Gr8white03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
That site mentions manpowered aircraft but I don't see any reference to man-powered flight, which is the title of this article. In fact ALL the external references (the ones in English) refer to human-powered flight, not man-powered flight. So I don't see that as a valid reason.
In any event, I don't see what bearing the terminology that particular group chooses to use should have on anything else, least of all the title of a Wikipedia article. Clearly, the more widely used and accepted terminology is "Human-powered", so why not go with that?
Gr8white19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"That particular group" just happens to be the worldwide body for any type of achievement in aviation. They are not just anyone. (Sadly they did not use a hyphen in 'manpowered'.) There are precedents for the less common name being used in Wikipedia. Type in 'soccer', the common name in the US, and 'Association football', the correct name, you are redirected to
Football (soccer), which no-one calls it by! I suppose I am fighting a rearguard action against the petty PC re-naming of anything with 'man' in it.
JMcC23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If there's a rear guard that wants to rename everything with 'man' in it, I'm certainly not a member of it. If there was an established precedent for "Man-powered flight" I'd be totally in favor of retaining the name. I'm suggesting replacing terminology that virtually nobody uses (not even the sporting aviation group mentioned above, which uses "manpowered aircraft") with what almost everyone else does. Not sure why that's considered being "politically correct".
Gr8white21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I checked the stats. "Manpowered flight" gets 424 hits in Google,"man-powered flight" gets 859 hits (with and without the hyphen), and "human powered flight", gets 24,700. Coincidentally yesterday I read David Crystal's book about the futility of attempts to stop changes in the language, so I have to wave the white flag. Move it if you wish.
JMcC06:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)reply
yesterday, I moved to human powered flight-page to human powered aircraft. It seems to me that there was a consensus on the talk-page and that it was thus approved. Please revert my edit. Thanks.
It appeared to me that there was consensus to move the page to
Human-powered aircraft also, but KVDP moved the article by copy and pasting, which is not the appropriate way to move a page. Since we're moving a page over to a redirect, we don't need to keep the redirect's history. We just delete that page, along with it's history, and move the other page over. The page that we are moving is the page whose history we need to preserve. --
ÐeadΣyeДrrow (
Talk |
Contribs)
22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
First the article says "Under the auspices of the Society, in 1959 the industrialist Henry Kremer offered the Kremer Prizes of £50,000 for the first man-powered aeroplane to fly a figure-of-eight course round two markers half-a-mile apart."
Later, "In 1967 Kremer increased his prize money tenfold to £50,000, for no-one had even attempted his challenging course."
Presumably the prize was initially £5,000?
Muad (
talk)
12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Has one of these vehicles achieved any height which would obviate
ground effect? The aircraft I have read about seem to skim just a few metres above the ground/water, so is there a case for mentioning ground effect in the article, even for adding the category "Ekranoplan" (or whatever the correct category would be)? Has anyone ever towed an HPA to/launched one from any significant height, which was then maintained by mechanical effort? --
TraceyR (
talk)
10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Another German attempt at the same time at the HV-1 Mufli
Folks, I thought you
might find this article of interest from the July 1934 issue of Popular Science. I have a feeling its frame is made of balsa wood. I am posting this just as trivia as I know it would over load the article if every attempt was posted. Jack
Jackehammond (
talk)
05:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
The better solution, I think, is to mention that a few not-very-successful efforts have been made in the area of man-powered helicopters, and prominently link to the helicopter article. That is, host a summary of the helicopter article within this one, without changing the name of this one.
Binksternet (
talk)
01:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Fixed-wing aircraft is a sub-article to
aircraft, and while human-powered helicopters have been attempted the majority of the work on human-powered flight has been in fixed-wing aircraft so (while the article is not named as such) fixed-wing endeavours dominate the text. A couple of sentences on the human-powered helicopter should be present in this article.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Human-powered aircraft. 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.