Talk:Mach tuck

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mach Tuck Recovery 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pedantic Writing! 

message: 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)
replies: text: [Update] So I had a go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate cause and diagram 

message: "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)
thread_title: bizzare expressions

message: 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.html to http://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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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