Talk:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 

Old Talk[edit]

[To facilitate editing sections of this talk, I'm introducing "==" headings. Hope no one minds. --Rocksci 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

I'm Japanese. You may think this is funny question, but please let me know, how do you pronounce NACA? Is this pronouced continiously like NASA or NATO (or like n-a-k-a)? Or separetely as RAF (or like enu-ei-see-ei)? (I have some more words like this. Are there some web pages relating this kind of problem?) -- Marsian 16:26, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Thanks Ashley! Now I can pronounce it with confidence. By the way, the NACA inlet is also used in (relatively low-speed?) aircraft, perhaps mainly for air conditioning. - Marsian 10:58, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

I'm thinking I should change "NACA duct, a form of air intake" to NACA duct, a boundary layer scoop". Am I getting too tekkie? The scoop functions in the boundary layer, so it can be flush-mounted, so less drag. It's used for various intake purposes in aviation, & notably as an extractor scoop in NASCAR. Trekphiler 11:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is too techie for here. Edit the NACA scoop article if you think more explanation is needed. --agr 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Expansion

I concur, this article definitely needs expansion. Things that need to be addressed:

  • origins - including role of Orville Wright
  • contributions - major areas of research (yes, there are a lot; highlights would be good
  • organization - list of directors, the NACA centers, how it operated
  • transformation into NASA

A short chronological history might be good, but heavily overlaps the other pieces I've listed. --Rocksci 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


NACA Technical Reports

The NACA Techical Report server is no longer active at Langley. It has been merged into the "NASA Technical Reports Server (NSTR)" at http://nstr.nasa.gov. Therefore, the citation under External Links should be replaced; but with what?? --Rocksci 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


New content by wikipedia newbie

I can add a few things to this article, however, I'm a wikipedia newbie so some "polishing" might be needed.--Racingjs 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wind Tunnels[edit]

The list of wind tunnels does not tell if they are at Langley, Ames, or elsewhere. The 40x80 is at Ames, but is not on the list. --Rocksci 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Special Committee on Space Technology[edit]

This section describes Von Braun as the chief engineer of the V-1. Despite what the corroborating articles say, I am certain that Von Braun played little or no part in the V-1 program. Penemunde was split into Luftwaffe (V-1) and Army (V-2) sections which had nothing to do with each other beyond the sharing of some infrastructure. Our own V-1 article says that "The V-1 was designed by Robert Lussar of the Fieseler company and Fritz Gosslau from the Argus engine works". Vgy7ujm 04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Director of NACA, role of Hugh Dryden[edit]

Elsewhere, Hugh Dryden is listed as becoming Director of NACA in 1947 -- initially just Director of Aeronautical Research, and then just Director. Apparently, this is different from being Chairman of NACA. It seems to me that he figures more prominently in NACA history than many of the chairmen. It seems this post did not exist before his appointment. Is this so? Why was it created? Dryden, of course, went on to be Associate Administrator of NASA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksci (talkcontribs) 11:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion tag[edit]

Is it time to remove the expansion tag I added here in August of 2006? It's definitely not a stub anymore. -- Strangelv (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead OR[edit]

What exactly is OR in the Lead about NACA ducts, airfoils, and cowlings? All of these have corraborating articles. I added the Fact tag before I looked at the 3 articles, but having seen them, I don't think it even needs the Fact tag now. All three are common in their respective fields. - BilCat (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing (assertions) need(s) to be cited. For example who says: "The name remains familiar in the automotive world" for the NACA duct, a type of air intake, or "to those in the aircraft industry,..." or "as several series of NACA airfoils and NACA cowling are still being used in new designs". --Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see OR there. I've come across several uses of NACA airfoils mentioned in Flying, & rodders have been using NACA ducts since at least the '80s, with published pics in major mags. (No, I don't have any of them at hand...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, if a statement such as, for example, "The name remains familiar in the automotive world" can be verified per WP:V and WP:RS by a citation, then we do not have a WP:OR problem. If not, then this is OR. I wouldn't disagree to modify these statements so that they can be attributed to a reliable source and thus eliminate the OR inherently present in unverifiable statements. In other words someone must have reached a conclusion that "The name remains familiar in the automotive world" and published it in a reliable source for us to use it. If we came up with it, out of our own experience, it is, unfortunately, OR. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I find that a ridiculously high standard. It's on a par with being unable to compare the complexity of Operation MB8 with that of Battle of Midway without a 3d party source (a single one) saying they're both complex. Isn't use in, or appearance in, major magazines enough to demonstrate continued familiarity? Or are the writers & editors all idiots? Or what? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, I came here to discuss a few points. If you start using terms like "idiots" and edit summaries like "huh" I don't think I can help you further because I just don't like your tone. On the other hand the matter can be referred to WP:ORN for further clarification. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one demanding such high standards. And you appear to think magazine writers & editors who have mentioned these things are stupid unless there's additional sourcing beyond their use. If that's mistaken, feel free to correct me. As for my "tone", I can't help that it doesn't come out in text as well as in speech. Nor can I help your being offended. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. If you know of any magazine editor who said that "The NACA name remains familiar in the automotive world" etc. etc., then this discussion is over. No OR, no problem. I hope you realise when we make statements like the one I just used as an example we must attribute them to someone. Otherwise these statements are by default our own, ergo OR. Also what does "automotive world" mean? Is it the American automotive world? the European? Does it include the Big Three? Aftermarket brands? Among its other problems this phrasing is also vague. Also we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. High standards come with the turf. Anyway if we cannot find citations to support these statements maybe we can rephrase to something more verifiable. I am open to suggestions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am a strong proponent of [[WP:V}}. However, in this case, I don't think you have any credible reason to doubt the claims in question. That's why I thought your main issue was with the crap about the abbreviations, not the other statements. It's certainly not a claim worthy of being deleted on sight without giving other users a chance to at least try to find reliable sources to verify the claims being made. While I don't think it's really necessary, that is what the policy requires when an uncited claim is challenged, but is not obviously erroneous or dubious. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons for removing these statements as OR but when my edit was partially undone I did not insist on removing them again per WP:BRD. However they need rephrasing and citations in order to become verifiable. You are also correct that I primarily opposed the pronunciation guide. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"If you know of any magazine editor who said that 'The NACA name remains familiar in the automotive world'" Which is, to some degree, my problem with your complaint. Isn't use enough? That is, they're appearing in the mags themselves, or writers/editors are referring to them in use. IMO, that's evidence enough. You appear to disagree & demand an explicit "We see them all the time" from staffers. I find that excessive. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you know the answer to that. You are an experienced user and I am sure you understand that we cannot survey the literature on the subject and then announce in the article that a lot of magazines cover the duct. Someone else ideally must do the survey and then publish it in a reliable source for us to be able to use it. But given that an elementary Google search reveals that the NACA ducts are used in high- performance automotive applications and given that there is no third-party reporting of their extensive use in that industry, I am amenable to including this fact as long as we rephrase because I think the expression "automotive world" is too OR. As far as the rest of the paragraph involving the NACA cowlings and airfoils maybe we can cover it with citations the same creative way. It is an ad-hoc approach and not strictly adhering to WP:OR and other policies but given the lack of third-party sources this may be the best we can do at present. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"I think you know the answer to that." I don't, actually, because I keep seeing conflicting opinion on what is, or isn't, OR. Or, at least, what passes the "deletion test". If the claim was "in widespread use in the auto industry", I'd want a cite, yes. (Even here, if there were pix of numerous models with NACA ducts, or a long list, even if no source said it expressly, I'd OK it.) It isn't, AFAI can tell, it's "known in" or "used in", which seems to me to be met by examples of use, plus (say) the author saying, "this is in use" (if not "common use") or "this is familiar". Put it another way (because I have an article in mind; I just can't recall where from...): if a mag article says, "The NACA duct is familiar to hot rodders", in a piece on installing (or building) one, does that pass? Because, unless I'm misunderstanding you (& may be), you're saying that's a fail. How about a piece that mentions an NACA airfoil? That seems clear evidence to me NACA airfoils are still in use, but, again, it would appear to fail your test. I guess I have trouble with any conclusion of any kind being called "OR". Is reading one article on the '65 Mustang & one the '66 GTO, each with quarter times, then saying one is quicker "OR" (or "synthesis")? (OK, maybe that's an extreme example; it's an illustration only.) By the strict definition, it would appear to be; it would appear to be by yours, also. It's that kind of nitpicking I'm afraid this will encourage, & we're already getting it. Take a look at this & this. I don't want to encourage more of the same. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At this point, we should probably focus onnb rewriting the text to have less of a disputable claim. However, I'm at a loss as how best to rewrite it. We should just propose some rewrites here, and see if we can establish a consesus on an acceptable version. - BilCat (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

At Trekphiler: You asked: if a mag article says, "The NACA duct is familiar to hot rodders", in a piece on installing (or building) one, does that pass? It would pass, not by much but it would. Among your other examples such as articles mentioning airfoils and taken as evidence of use, I agree that they can be used as a last resort but they are not indisputably correct. From your reply, however, I can see that you are very familiar with the issues surrounding OR, just as I expected and it seems our views are not that far apart because you identify the same issues I am concerned about. Now to reply to Bilcat, I edited the following quote into the article yesterday. Therefore I propose it. It is not perfect but I think it is less OR than the previous version. Please modify, edit, remove, revert at will. I will not mind. The whole deal here is that we have three NACA products; the duct, the cowling and the airfoils, and we want to package their info to the reader that they survived the demise of NACA and prospered well into the 1980s. 1990s and even to this day. Our responsibility is to make the packaging, i.e. the context, as compliant with the WP:OR policy as we can.

NACA research and development produced the NACA duct, a type of air intake used in modern automotive applications, the NACA cowling,[1][2] and several series of NACA airfoils which are still used in aircraft manufacturing.

Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
At first glance, that's acceptable to me. It keeps the fact that NACA technology has modern uses, but without making any claims on "familiarity" and scope. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you BilCat. That was exactly my aim. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You're wlecom. I missed the change in the article yesterday, which is why I hadn't commented on it before. I think we briefly mentioned a rewrite before, then got bogged down in a discussion quagmire. It happens sometimes. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You are right about quagmires. They do tend to happen and I've been in a few of them myself. :) I also didn't know about a previous discussion, thank you for the information. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
"it seems our views are not that far apart because you identify the same issues I am concerned about. " I confess surprise. :) It seemed to me we had a chasm between us. I am pleased to be mistaken. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Likewise. Live long and prosper. :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Barnes, Bart (2014-02-16). "Eric O. Stork, former EPA official who oversaw auto emissions compliance, dies at 87". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-02-23. 
  2. ^ "Eric O. Stork". Microsoft Academic Search. Retrieved 2014-02-23. 

Discussion on NACA reports[edit]

Those interested in this page may also be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_2#Category:National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics which discusses the fate of a large number of copied NACA reports here on Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NACA & Fundamental Research[edit]

I was reading a documentary which said that NACA during the 1920's vigorously defended its mission as THE source of theoretical aeronautical research. When exactly in the '20's was this? 24.44.68.12 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).