2
$\begingroup$

The question: For how long can an Embraer E195 airplane glide at malfunction?

The review ended with 3x leave open and 2x close.

The question asks if a specific plane would fall like a rock, or how long/far can it glide, while the suggested duplicate is the same but is not for a certain plane.

What are your thoughts?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand the question as review has been done (3 for leaving open, 2 for closing) $\endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 15 '19 at 7:24
  • $\begingroup$ @ManuH: Meta and/or chat is the best place for discussions, not comments, that's why I brought the topic here to settle on a policy. Actual voters are 3:3 considering the user who first sent the item to review. Even if it's 5:0, bringing the topic to wider audience (e.g., those who didn't have a say in the review) is still valid to discuss the logic behind it. $\endgroup$
    – ymb1
    May 15 '19 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ I do understand, but when review is done, why open a question here? In other words,do we need to discuss the review? If so,what is the review made for? $\endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 15 '19 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ @ManuH: Much like how a closed question (after review is also done) can be reopened after discussion on meta, the same can happen the opposite way. Discussion can refine policy and/or reach agreement since comments are not for extended discussions. $\endgroup$
    – ymb1
    May 15 '19 at 15:24
1
$\begingroup$

I think it should be left open and only aircraft specific answer should be accepted.

  • When review is done, I don't understand why discuss it. Here, review says: it should stay open (and my comment saying this should be done because it is aircraft specific has been upvoted). If we begin discussing reviews, then everyone unhappy with a review will post a question here. I really think this should not be done, or reviews are useless.
  • If the requested answer is not aircraft specific, then the question should be closed as duplicate (no more answer accepted).
  • If the data is not available, then the question cannot be answered. I doubt this is the case as wikipedia presents hard numbers for some aircraft (linked in the answer).

For the resource finding,

  • if the fear is the number of question, we already allow "help me identifying the aircraft on this photo"-questions
  • we already allow legal resources finding ("under this jurisdiction, are we allowed to do something?")
  • we already allow POH resource finding.
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed. It could be most interesting to find out why a certain aeroplane can glide much longer than another type. And there is enough activity of unilateral deletion here, best leave the result of democratic voting as is. $\endgroup$
    – Koyovis
    May 17 '19 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Koyovis: A closed question can get reopened after discussion on meta/chat. Why not leave those closed? And clearly the question doesn't ask why a certain plane glides farther, rather would that plane fall like a rock or glide. $\endgroup$
    – ymb1
    May 17 '19 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ @ymb1 I do agree: it can be reopen if edited or if any new element is added. Here, non of these conditions is fulfilled. $\endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 17 '19 at 13:29
  • $\begingroup$ My personal preference: questions have the benefit of the doubt and are only closed if proven guilty. $\endgroup$
    – Koyovis
    May 18 '19 at 1:22
1
$\begingroup$

I am against allowing distinct questions for each plane's L/D ratio, which isn't normally published to begin with.

  1. There is no value from such specific questions.
  2. This site is not for asking where to find aviation-related data, in this case, each plane's L/D ratio.

Asking about and to understand the underlying physics (L/D ratio) is more on-topic than asking for plane-specific data.

I think the suggested duplicate, How far can airplanes glide? is more than enough to address would that plane fall like a rock or glide.

In general, and similarly, if the older question were about a specific plane, then it too would suffice answering a future general question about the same thing.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ For me it should be OK to delete this question if (and only if) the requested L/D ratio (the one of the E195) is provided in the older question. $\endgroup$
    – Manu H
    May 15 '19 at 7:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ManuH: As I've presented my point of view, specific L/D falls under resource finding (which isn't typically officially published). So instead of the current estimations, the suggested duplicate suffices IMO. But please submit your point of view as an answer so it can be voted on. $\endgroup$
    – ymb1
    May 15 '19 at 12:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .