Talk:Line of thrust

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arches vs rockets

Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I note that links to this article has just been added to articles about pistons (desaxe), rockets (Walter HWK 109-507), jet engines (Bede BD-5) and propellers (The Butterfly Golden). Now these are good links, the conceptual line of thrust (especially in these three seemingly off-axis examples) is significant. It might even be added to multi-engined aircraft or counter-rotating propellers, as they don't always have their multiple lines of thrust parallel, which is worth noting.

The trouble is though that this article is about bridges. The line of thrust here is a different concept - in particular, this line is a locus, not a vector. The line in bridges can curve.

This article also needs to be added as links to skew arch and probably some of the examples of skew bridges, as it's an important concept there.

Does line of thrust need to convert to a disambiguation? Then make a new article for "line of thrust" as a vector for thrust-producing engines? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have finally removed these links (the list is: Desaxe, The Butterfly Golden, Walter HWK 109-507, Bede BD-5). Now we will be waiting for someone to write the "other" LoT article and restore the links. Hopefully, it will not take 10 years. Викидим (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Or just break this article into sections?

Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Or just break this article into sections? If that could handle it, without a mess of cross-linked article on different-but-related concepts, that might be nicer.

dino (talk)

Are they the same concept?

Technically, we can do either. We can also do one then split later, if it seems to make sense. But I think it needs to start with some sections and concept that makes the distinction clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would expect the other LoT to be a small section in some airframe-related article - there is not much that can be said about it. This LoT has a rich history and many associated notions (I have added th e"safe theorem"). So separate ways are better, IMHO. Викидим (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply