Talk:Wind tunnel

Engineering B‑class Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Aviation: Aircraft

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Cleanup

This article has no flow and it lacks details on some subjects while providing too much detail on others. The text needs to be broken up into smaller categories and I would love to see more information and pictures on the different types of wind tunnels. Willy Logan 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

I intend to put some time into this article over the next few weeks to help bring it up to standards. My background is in Aeronautical Engineering, and specifically in wind tunnel experimentation. I am not, however, a particularly good writer or editor so any help will be appreciated. I have a few thoughts on the existing sections, and how to better organize the article.

Intro Beef it up to provide more accurate/current measurement techniques and gear the section to serve as a roadmap for the article.

History There is a lot of uncited material in here. In addition, a lot of the material is actually off topic. While the research of Benjamin Robins and his whirling arm is interesting, it is not stricly speaking a wind tunnel. It is a testing technique that predates wind tunnels, and is worthy of mention, but perhaps we can create a more suitable topic. Also, this section is sprinkled with asertations that are the author's opinion, and as such should be removed. This sections also mentions a myrad of other aerospace topics (CFD, Boundary Layers, Human Free Fall) that should be linked to or discussed in a seperate section.

How it works Expand and add supporting graphics.

Wind Tunnel classification The present info describes the speed regiems that wind tunnels simulate, not the classification or configuration of the wind tunnels them selfs. This may be a good subtobic for How it works. Wind tunnels can also be classified in terms of how they operate (open or closed circuit, blow or suck, moving walls, etc) or what they simulate (aerodynamic, atmospheric boundary layer...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.73.8.70 (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well known wind tunnels around the world This section is dangerously looking like a place where people can link to bolster their own work/prestiege. "Well known" is a very subjective term, and as such we should avoid using it. We may consider making a list of largest/fastest/first/etc, or consider deleting the topic all together

See also Expand

References Yea ... we'll need these

External Links This should likely be links to sites about wind tunnel testing, theory, and history. We should avoid linking to specific tunnels because a) there are far too many of them, and b) it would serve to bias the article to specific facilities and researchers

Other Thoughts The way I see it, this page fits in a larger category of Aerodynamic testing along with Flight testing, Test development, and CFD. Please respond with suggestions as I plan on editing next week. Jeff220 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. There is no aerodynamic testing article, but I think there ought to be. The various topics currently on this article that are unrelated to wind tunnels can go under aerodynamic testing. I agree that this article should be limited to wind tunnel subjects specifically.

I agree that there should be an aerodynamic testing article. There is currently a section on CFD in this article. Why not a section that talks about aerodynamic testing in the field. Our company, Alphamantis Technologies (http://alphamantis.com) , applies telemetry data to the calculation of drag area for bicycles. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest here because I work for Alphamantis, but this kind of testing should be covered, IMO. Andy Froncioni (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Well-known wind tunnels around the world is necessary.

A section explaining the different types of wind tunnels (subsonic, supersonic, spin tunnels, etc.) would be useful.

Good luck making these edits. Willy Logan 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could also benefit from a section on common errors in wind tunnel testing. To be truly useful to anyone it needs to link to an article on model properties and how they relate. I hope to do a fair amount of CFD analysis and wind tunnel testing in the near future so I will do my best to contribute. Mattbondy (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

The first edit is complete, which involved removing the "Well known" section. In case anyone still wants to know what was on that list, I've placed it below. Jeff220 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well known wind tunnels around the world

Photo and remarks by Wilbur Wright on the replica he built of the Wright Brothers wind tunnel.
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA — The largest wind tunnel in the world.
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA.
The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory at the University of Western Ontario, London Canada
CPP, Inc.'s boundary layer wind tunnels for buildings and structures, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin (RWDI)'s boundary layer wind tunnels
Japan Association for wind engineering
Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tullahoma, Tennessee
MIRA Ltd, Full-Scale Automotive Wind Tunnel, Nuneaton, UK.
FKFS, Forschungsinstitut für Kraftfahrwesen und Fahrzeugmotoren Stuttgart

There are more than just planes.

I think that there should be all types of drag on planes. But I also think that there should be somthing about the drag effect on cars and trucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.55.62.218 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Also there should be a separate section on atmospheric boundary layer wind tunnels, which are currently randomly discussed in the history section.--193.82.249.132 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parachutes for various Mars rovers were tested in the 80x120 section of NFAC at Moffett Field. Back around 2002, I was told by a senior experimental aerodynamicist that parachute deployment was something that could not be handled by CFD software. As examples, I found the following links related to Mars rover parachute tests.

Mars Exploration Rovers - MER parachute tests in 2002-2003; see section titled "Parachute Wind Tunnel Tests"
Parachute Deceleration System Testing - test for Curiosity
Wind Tunnel Testing Perseverance's Parachute - test for Perservence; image and caption only

RocketSci (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wind Tunnels

There are a lot of wind tunnels around. If we think a list is appropriate, we should start it as a separate article. I've suggested a few operating characteristics in the table format below.

Facility	Location	Tunnel	Type	Test Section	Max Velocity (Mach)
NASA Ames	Sunnyvale, California	Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel	Transonic, Closed loop	11' x 11'	1.45
NASA Ames	Moffett Field, California	National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex	Subsonic, Closed and open loop	40' x 80' (closed), 80' x 120' (open)	0.45

Does anyone think this is worth doing? And if so, what characteristics do you think are needed?

ComputerGeezer (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. Adding NFAC at NASA Ames. (Note correct city.) --RocketSci (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site is about wind tunnels, not about the question of the first succesful heavier-than-air flight!

"Sir George Cayley (1773-1857), the father of aerodynamics"

Ok ... thought this title is generally attributed to Ludwig Prandtl

I deleted this, because here's not the place to discuss this issue.

"Armed with test data from the arm, Cayley built a small glider that is believed to have been the first successful heavier-than-air vehicle to carry a man in history."

Yes, I know. Englishmen have invented everything! ("believed to have" .. did he or did he not? Any proofs, which could validate this?)

File:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics wind tests (1946).webm to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics wind tests (1946).webm will be appearing as picture of the day on February 11, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-02-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Wind tests being conducted on a volunteer at the Langley Research Center in 1946. In these tests, under the guidance of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and at the request of the United States Navy, the volunteer was subjected to wind speeds reaching a maximum of 457 mph (735 km/h); local wind speeds along the subject's face reached 720 mph (1,160 km/h)). These tests were intended to measure the effects of bailing out of a high-speed aircraft on the human body. They showed that "effects of the wind stream on clothing and gear were in many ways more pronounced than on the subject. Even at low speeds, loose clothing flapped and fluttered violently. The helmet and chin strap needed constant readjustment, and the helmet's seams began to tear during exposures to 400-mile-an-hour winds."Video: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wind tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USAAC, not USAF

At the end of the section titled "Widespread Usage," there is a reference to General Hap Arnold and the "USAF" in 1939. There was no such thing as a United States Air Force in 1939. At that time, it was the United States Army Air Corps, or USAAC.173.62.25.90 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]