Contents

Talk:Mach tuck

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation 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 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. Physics: Fluid Dynamics Low‑importance 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 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[edit]

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]

"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]

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]

Unsigned (77.58.1.166) did not insert the word "engulfed", he is challenging the entire paragraph; that is why he has written it with quotation marks. Dolphin (t) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Causes currently states, "Mach tuck results from an aerodynamic stall wherein airflow over the upper surface of a cambered wing exceeds Mach 1.0 and thereby forms a shock wave where it returns to subsonic speed; a boundary layer separation therefore forms aft of the shock wave and spoils the lift behind it. The image to the right illustrates this concept." This describes a situation in which lift towards the rear is lost so the centre of lift must move forward, the opposite of the nose-down "tuck". This article really needs a hatchet job. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] So I had a go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It also had three fuselages: the central weapon and pilot nacelle or gondola and the twin booms, which contained engines and turbochargers"

"Bernoulli's effect very strongly worked on the thick wing "

Does anyone else think the above are a bit weird for a wikipedia article and should be changed to something more normal and suitably sourced? Could they be verbatim from Bodie?Pieter1963 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mach tuck. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614103204/http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/High-Speed/Page2e.htmltohttp://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/High-Speed/Page2e.html

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) 10:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Disambiguation link. 2001:B011:8000:7A88:24A0:3F62:36A9:26FF (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]