Talk:Empennage

Pronuncation?

Does anyone know what is the more correct (or more popular?) pronuncation? dictionary.com says /ɛmpənidʒ/ (my transcription), but I've heard it pronounced /ɛmpənɑ:ʃ/. PeepP 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The ending is pronounced the same as in fuselage. The simplest way of explaining it is that it's pronounced as emp-en-arge although I don't know what the the IPA notation would be.

Good article BTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

All-flying tail

Some description of this needs to be added, since it is mentioned at the end of the MiG-15 article. Askari Mark | Talk 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this true?

Is it true that in most commercial flights, people are more likley to survive an impact if sitting in the rear of the plane?

No, it's an urban myth. Askari Mark | Talk 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Article feedback points

Two questions have been asked through the article feedback system. The first asks what is the etymology of the word (presumably French for something!) and the second simply said 'Transport joint'. It's true that many jet fighter aircraft types have their rear ends removed for engine changes and transport, we should try to add something on this. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded an image (File:Hawker Hunter tail TMAM.jpg) that could be used here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The term "Empennage" is not commonly used compared to "tail" - Google returns 1,000,000 for Empennage, 25,000,000 for aircraft tail. So, per WP:COMMONNAME, this article ought to be moved accordingly. But "tail" needs disambiguating. Options which occur to me include:

• Aircraft tail (currently redirects here)
• Tail (aircraft)
• Tail assembly (aircraft)
• Tail section (aircraft)

My own preference is for Tail (aircraft). Any comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support any of these. But "Aircraft tail" seems the simplest and does not have parenthetical disamb. text. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm one of those old chaps to whom empennage sounds right (along with other funny French words like aileron that Flight used to Italicize!), but am aware it sounds a bit antiquated to many. So a move with a redirect would be fine. I do think it should change to something close to the meaning of empennage, though, so I'd go for Tail surfaces as none of the three suggestions made above focuses on these; Tail (aircraft) includes things like tailwhhels and bumpers, tail parachutes and tail gunners etc, as do the others. Tail surfaces would also need no bracketed DAB.TSRL (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Technically, the empennage can also include the structure connecting the tail surfaces. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

• Oppose Why move to a title with a disambiguator? If all the red links above were created and direct here then there would be no problem. As an aircraft engineer the other alternative terms don't have meaning. A tail is a specific part (limb?!) of an animal but not of an aeroplane. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME explains why. I have met many aircraft engineers who know exactly what the "tail" means. Can you cite any evidence in support of your PoV? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I favor tail assembly, since its clear, there's no need for disambiguation, and it already redirects here. Also, Britannica uses 'tail assembly'.[1] Darx9url (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Empennage is specific to aircraft, whereas "tail" of any flavour requires a disambiguator. All other terms redirect anyway, so it is not like readers won't find it. Just a personal beef, but I am not in favour of any "dumbing down" of the encyclopedia, I would rather use the correct term, even if Google doesn't find it is the most common in the general media sources (meaning outside the aviation press sources), WP:COMMONNAME notwithstanding. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: it seems to be largely a matter of "historical English" (including a lot of French roots, indeed) vs. "American English"; and I see nothing wrong with adhering to the historic (which is not incorrect, not at all) rather than following the "new-fangled" Americanism, which offers not a single advantage, while bringing the disadvantage of having to go through a disambiguation, as already pointed out. Also, I very much object to using Google hits and the count of them as a criterion - it is not because everybody and their dog act "stupid" that our encyclopdia should follow suit. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Checking the policy on title disambiguation WP:ATDAB, I'd say it boils down to the relative weights we give to the recognizability vs. conciseness WP:CRITERIA. The average first-time visitor will not know what the term "empennage" means, but everybody knows what a "tail" is. Does this make the term empennage "obscure" within the context of the policy wording? On the other hand, "tail" would need disambiguating. Which way to fall? (By the way, I do not see any historic/nationalistic issues here at all). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Everybody knows what a tail is? If/when I hear of a tail, I think of a dog or of a crocodile, or such. Yes, I know what those are; nothing to do with aeroplane architecture. Then again are we managing an encyclopedia or are we writing a tabloid? What is the relevance of "the average first-time visitor" and their behaviour, even if that could be determined? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I just checked every reference book I have available; two textbooks on aerodynamics, two dictionaries of aeronautical terms, and a glossary in Jane's. All five define the tail and its various parts, none defines "empennage". If you are really not familiar with such established terminology, as you claim, then perhaps you should not be participating in this discussion. Both terms are in demonstrable use, neither can be sensibly denied. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'm not a native english speaker so I can't argue, but with quotes the search result is quite different: ""Empennage" gets 943,000 results while "aircraft tail" gets 186,000 results (but 149 million without the quotes, for any text with both words).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That is an unfair comparison. "Aircraft tail" should be compared to "aircraft empennage" in quotes, which gives only 4,510 hits. That is closer to how the English language works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Counting google hits is not how wikipedia works, either. the whole point is moot. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that is an accurate and fair comparison: empennage already defines it being an aircraft so "aircraft empennage" is essentially "aircraft aircraft tail". Unquoted 'aircraft' & 'tail' will include articles that don't contain both, artificially inflating your numbers. Unquoted 'empennage' is a 1.3mil versus, 300,000 for 'airplane tail' & 'aircraft tail' combined.

Either way Google search is a poor judge of popularity - results inaccessible (you can't view more than a couple hundred,) inconsistent, and tailored to return google maximum profits. Here are a couple examples of why its a bad metric. Searching "aircraft tail" without quotes, on the first page gives this:

• Plane Tails - Frontier's airlines animal stories"
• Bluetail - aviation paperwork software
• Etsy (blindly duplicates your search terms)
• Shutterstock (^^ same)
• iStockPhoto (^^ same)
• Tailwind - airline

and various other online stores and trinket sellers.

My problem with WP:COMMONNAME here is introducing inaccuracy and dumbing down the encyclopedia; most people on the street will call Ailerons, "Flaps", which is COMMON, and wrong. Many simply call the vertical stabilizer "the tail", also wrong. Do you think those articles should be renamed to "Flaps" or "Tail"?

I Oppose based on what WP:CRITERIA says "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." -- the subject area here is Aircraft Structure, not John Q Public on the street recognizing that 'oh its an airplane'. Strangerpete (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I consider Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2 to be fairly definitive in these sorts of matters. It has "empennage (aircraft structure)" and a lengthy entry on what it is and how it works, but does not have "tail" (although it has some tail-related things, like "tailwind") nor does it have "aircraft tail" (although it does have many other related things, such as "aircraft accident" and "aircraft battery"). I would go with the RS on this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we should go with the majority of RS on this. Six have now been cited, all of which mention "tail" in some form but only one mentions "empennage". We can easily add a seventh, the Flight archive, which in 2004 for example used "empennage" 19 times but "tail" as a discrete word in excess of a hundred. Seriously, nobody is calling the industry use of "empennage" into question here. But even in technical RS it is a minority usage. And even the present article uses the word "tail" many more times than "empennage", without taking into account the common combinations such as tailboom or tailplane. And whoever heard of an empennageboom, empennageplane, empennagewheel, twin-empennage, etc. etc.? WP:COMMONNAME really does need serious consideration here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with your examples of "empennagewheel" is that conflating two different words with overlapping but separate definitions. Tail is used in english often to refer to simply the 'rear' end of something, where as Empennage is a specific structure and assembly of parts - "an arrangement of stabilizing surfaces at the tail of an aircraft.". A tailwheel is at the tail of the aircraft, yet is not part of, and nothing to do with empennage. Just the simple use of the word 'tail' does not mean or imply empennage. A tail number might be on the empennage, it is not a 'empennage number', for a variety of obvious reasons Strangerpete (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, how do Crane and others define an empennage? Are there kinds of tail, such as the outboard tail, which do not conform to typical definitions of "empennage" (or vice versa)? If so, then we should go for the more general term here and explain the difference in the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If it helps Crane says: empennage (airplane structure). The tail section of an airplane. The empennage stabilizes the airplane in flight and causes it to rotate about its vertical and lateral axes. An inverted cruciform empennage consists of a fixed vertical fin with a movable rudder attached to its trailing edge, and a fixed horizontal stabilizer with a movable elevator hinged to its trailing edge on both sides of the fuselage. Another type of empennage, the V-tail, has only two fixed and two movable surfaces arranged in the shape of the letter V. These two surfaces stabilize the airplane and rotate about its two axes in the same way as the three fixed and three movable surfaces. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It is interesting to see that he defines it in terms of the "tail section". Also in the context of the present discussion, I wonder why he feels the need to disambiguate it. If that is in fact necessary then the main argument against using "tail" here falls away. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was curious as Jane's don't use the term apparently, these entries are according to Bill Gunston's Jane's Aerospace Dictionary. London, England. Jane's Publishing Company Ltd, 1980. ISBN 0 531 03702 9. Empennage - complete tail unit. Tail unit - complete tail of horizontal, vertical and/or canted surfaces, often including ventral fins or strakes. Also called empennage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here too is an interesting pointer: The empennage, commonly called the tail assembly ..., is the rear section of the body of the airplane. (my bold). I refer once again to WP:COMMONNAME. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps relevant: how do we classify the stabilo of a canard aircraft? It certainly cannot be called part of the tail or tail assembly or whatever tail-related term. But is it part of the empennage? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

We classify it as a "canard" and disambiguate it at Canard (aeronautics), to which Canard aircraft redirects. So far as I know no canard structure has ever been classified as an empennage. It has sometimes been informally described as "putting the tail in front", though never to my knowledge "putting the empennage in front". The equivalent to the tailplane is the foreplane. It may or may not act as a horizontal stabilizer, the technicalities get complicated. But yes, Tail (aeronautics) would align neatly with that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

'Empennage' - one word, 'tail unit' - two words. 'Empennage' is applicable to aeroplanes only, whereas 'tail unit' could also apply to rockets, bombs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sharing lift?

The article states that the horizontal stabilizer shares lift with the wing. Is this commonly true? I thought the most common situation was for the H. stabilizer to provide a downward force in level flight to enhance stability wrt stall (.i.e. loss of lift results in a nose-down recovery rather than a stall). 99.245.230.104 (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It was quite incorrect, have edited it to a more correct form. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirm. A stabilo behind the centre of gravity must provide negative lift to be effective. A stabilo before the centre of gravity is effective while adding to lift - which is why all early aeroplanes had them, and also why canard aircraft are intrinsically more efficient. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)