Talk:Clark Y airfoil: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:06, 2 July 2023

Aviation Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

For all i know, there is no such thing as a flat-bottomed clark-y profile. a flat-bottomed clark-y is the result of a lazy model aircraft builder. the original profile is undercambered (as it should be, for aerodynamic efficiency)

Have a look at [1] for example. The Clark-Y is flat on the bottom within a 2 decimal place degree of accuracy. At model scales this represents such a minute dimension that nobody could feasibly build it that accurately. The popularity of the Clark-Y is partly due to this flatness - it can be built on a flat board. Aerodynamically the difference in performance between the "true" curve and a flat approximation is negligible, and swamped by other factors. Graham 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let-Mont Tulak

This isn't the place for a comprehensive list, or a list of everyone's favourites - merely a selection of some that are particularly well known, which the Let-Mont Tulak fails miserably.NiD.29 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine if you want to make it that. When I added the Tulak it was just "Applications" and so presumed to be a list of all uses of the airfoil. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought about making it more comprehensive but just the list from the webpage is very long, not to mention that the Clark Y, being a popular section, was probably used in a lot of obscure types whose section isn't known, ergo, it will never be complete.NiD.29 (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And back again - there is usually a listing of some types that used the airfoil - however in the interests on conciseness that can't include aircraft almost no one has heard of. The Incomplete guide to airfoil uses has over 500 hits for the Clark Y and 115 for the YH - and there are a lot more decent examples than the Tulak or an obscure modification like the 6W-3 - unless that was the first application, however that page makes no such claim. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need to cut it down some more and also to even out the two lists to the same length. I mean we have the Long Henderson Longster??? Now that is obscure compared to the modern and widely produced Blue Yonder Merlin. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several Longsters, including some not in museums but never encountered a Blue Yonder of any type, but perhaps it is a regional thing - agreed on trying to get them the same length however the YH was never as popular as the Y. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2011, 308 Merlins had been built by four different manufacturers, but you are unlikely to see one outside North America. The FAA says that there are six Longsters currently registered in the US, although at one time there were a total of 14. I think two representative example lists of the same length look good, though. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

two applications sections

There are two application second 108.31.4.226 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ::I have seen several Longsters, including some not in museums but never encountered a Blue Yonder of any type, but perhaps it is a regional thing - agreed on trying to get them the same length however the YH was never as popular as the Y.[[User:NiD.29|&#32;- NiD.29]] ([[User talk:NiD.29|talk]]) 18:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 :::As of 2011, 308 Merlins had been built by four different manufacturers, but you are unlikely to see one outside North America. The [http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&Modeltxt=LONGSTER&PageNo=1 FAA says] that there are six Longsters currently registered in the US, although at one time there were a total of 14. I think two representative example lists of the same length look good, though. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 11:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
+== two applications sections ==
+There are two application second [[Special:Contributions/108.31.4.226|108.31.4.226]] ([[User talk:108.31.4.226|talk]]) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)