Talk:Mach tuck: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:05, 10 December 2013

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.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Start‑class 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Mach Tuck Recovery

In the context of Reference #2, I believe it is inaccurate to say, "Recovery from a mach tuck is not always possible." This assumes there are no counteracting forces available or applied to the aircraft. On page 15-8, a procedure is described for recovering from Mach tuck above MMO when elevator control is insufficient. Reducing thrust to idle, extending spoilers, and extending landing gear would help to eliminate the Mach tuck condition.

Also, the word "Mach" should be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miqrogroove (talk • contribs) 01:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

P-38 pilots were not able to recover from Mach Tuck during WWII until modifications were made to the wings. That is what I think the author was referring to when he stated that recovery was not always possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.223.72.5 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic Writing!

"Before the phenomenon of Mach tuck can be explored, it must be assured that the reader understands the basic tenets of Bernoulli's principle as it relates to aerodynamic lift generated by an airfoil" - Seriously, who talks like that? Why are we assuring the phenomenon of Mach tuck? Is it a particularly insecure phenomenon??? 216.255.104.61 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I just reverted Tjfigueroa's reversion. I don't like the conversational tone of your example, and I don't like "Most basically", "Mach tuck is such a puzzling phenomenon", and "aforementioned factors". I think the article's tone should be more direct, to the point and encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

A fair amount of this information is wrongly attributed to Mach Tuck. The dynamics of shock formation aren't exactly necessary to discuss the effects of Mach Tuck. The only thing that needs to be said is that as a wing becomes supersonic, the aerodynamic center moves aft from the (typical estimate) 1/4 chord to the middle of the wing (1/2 chord). This change in the position of the "lift vector" with respect to the C.G. can be significant enough that the elevator authority may not be sufficient to counter it. Katanada (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Katanada. Actually, the aft-movement of the aerodynamic center is one of the phenomena associated with the critical Mach number. Therefore it is observed as the wing becomes transonic, not supersonic.

I moved Katanada's new section to the bottom of the page. In Wikipedia, the newest entry goes at the bottom. Dolphin51 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had it at the top because usually "Disputes" are put as the first entry until resolved and then moved to the bottom. Katanada (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katanada. When creating a new section on a Talk page, there is a tab labelled new section at the top of the page. (It is very convenient to use this tab, and it automatically inserts the title of the new section in the edit summary.) The new section tab places the new section at the bottom of the stack. Dolphin (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, there is a related condition that can exacerbate Mach tuck. If enough of the wing surface becomes engulfed in the shock wave, the wing will not produce enough lift to support the aircraft, and a standard stall will occur. This often fatal combination of overspeed and aerodynamic stall can most easily be avoided by not allowing the effects of Mach tuck to develop beyond its incipient stage. This is best accomplished by retarding the throttle, extending speed brakes, and if possible, extending the landing gear. Any actions, which would increase aerodynamic drag and thus reduce airspeed below critical Mach, will prevent further aggravation of the condition."

Now this paragraph contains some relevant facts, but the majority is just inacurate or even plain wrong. Some may call it 'bullshit'. Although I worked on aerodynamics myself quite a bit, I am not the expert here. So whoever has adequate knowledge, please help clean up.

Applies to the rest of the article as well, by the way. This paragraph was just most striking to me. 77.58.1.166 (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this "engulfed" terminology. Unsigned, can you please explain ? Katanada (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:43, 9 July 2013 edit 77.58.1.166 (talk) →Disputed ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:05, 10 December 2013 edit undo Katanada (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 2,703 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:

	Applies to the rest of the article as well, by the way. This paragraph was just most striking to me. [[Special:Contributions/77.58.1.166\|77.58.1.166]] ([[User talk:77.58.1.166\|talk]]) 09:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)		Applies to the rest of the article as well, by the way. This paragraph was just most striking to me. [[Special:Contributions/77.58.1.166\|77.58.1.166]] ([[User talk:77.58.1.166\|talk]]) 09:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

			: I've never heard of this "engulfed" terminology. Unsigned, can you please explain ? [[User:Katanada\|Katanada]] ([[User talk:Katanada\|talk]]) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)