lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Rate of climb

message: Serious editing required here. A number of incorrect statements and statements made without reference to the limited conditions under which they are correct (dVx/dz dependent upon shape of power available curve and upon Mach number effects at higher altitudes and velocities, bias of weight influence on props vs. jets, etc.) Should also have a few integrals for calculating total time between two levels, influence of supercharging, etc. (Weirpwoer (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 2008 

message: The article says that ft/min is mainly used in Anglo-Saxon countries, while elsewhere m/s was common. That is, at least, unexact. Since most GA aircrafts are built in the U.S., ft/min is worldwide a most common unit for the ROC. For Germany, I can say that only sailplanes (and maybe parachutes) express their ROC in m/s. Even ultralight aircrafts, mostly build in Germany, use ft/min for ROC and ft for altitude. 62.225.191.42 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-saxon 

message: Glide path has absolutely nothing to do with rate of climb. It might be important information, but if so it deserves a page of its own as it is completely unrelated to any rate of climb.
Solidpoint (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glide Path 

message: I can't imagine that www.flashcardmachine.com is an acceptable source for quoting in Wikipedia. --BjKa (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Foil (fluid mechanics)

message: I believe that the "y" in the shape formula is the half-thickness (to surface from the centerline) rather than the thickness, as stated.
Maybe someone more familiar with this can check; I am hesitant to change anything, but my other research finds the formula written "±y = ... etc..."
GinSTexas 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, you reflect the formula across the centerline (which in the 00xx series is the axis) to get the full shape.  scot 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NACA 00xx foil formula 
Talk:Flaperon

message: The intro makes extensive use of technical terms and is therefore difficult for someone lacking background knowledge to understand. Perhaps this could be improved. Lewdswap (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The paragraph on fluidics seems unintelligible.  Could someone have a go at making it clearer, please? Arrivisto (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluidics 
Talk:NACA cowling

message: added Reference on the "Anello Magni" as stated in the Italian wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robyvecchio (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

message: All my readings indicate that the NACA cowling was to decrease drag while still permitting cooling. None of them indicate anything about increased thrust through an unspecified effect. I suspect the unsourced statement in this article is due to conflation of a NACA cowling with the discovery of the Meredith effect as observed in liquid filled radiators and NACA's subsequent research into ramjets prompted by being told about the Meredith effect. That this article does not specify that the Meredith effect is only observed in liquid filled radiators is also a deficiency. Waerloeg (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased thrust 

message: I thought the entire point of the NACA duct being "shaped as an airfoil" is that the air flowing across it actually generates LIFT, in an outwards and slightly forward direction, thus "pulling" the plane along behind it, which basically acts the same as adding a small amount of thrust. I've even seen diagrams showing how this works, somewhere. If the entire point is merely to modify airflow and decrease drag, like a Townend ring, why is it shaped like an airfoil? Isn't the entire point of an airfoil to generate lift? The only other possibility I can think of is that it's shaped as such to accelerate the air flowing past the cylinder heads, to compensate for the fact that the opening allowed a smaller volume of air to enter than an uncowled engine, and perhaps also to cause the airflow to "stick" to the inside of the cowling, rather than separating and blowing around the crankcase, leaving little flow around the cylinder heads. If that is the case, it could be stated more clearly in the article?
I also wonder if the idea that the cowling used the Meredith effect comes from statements like this:
   "They also had to design an exit slot that released the air at a slightly higher velocity and lower pressure than it entered the cowling with"
(from http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter1.html)
Which might suggest at least slight Meredith effect to some people.
.45Colt 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NACA cowl generated forward lift?
Talk:NACA duct

message: It might be worthwhile to note that the duct only works effectively in an area of high pressure. The NACA duct is a wonderful design, but only when it's correctly applied. LostCause 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Addition 

message: The title of this page has been corrected.  This describes a NACA inlet, not a NACA duct!  An inlet is an opening that air flow into, while a duct is a passage that air flows through.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "NACA duct" appears to be the common name. Please discuss this fisrt, and provide evidence that "NACA inlet" is used in reliable sources, and is as common, if not more so, than "NACA duct" appeasr to be. Please do not move the article again without a clear consensus to do so. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: You need to cite your changes/additions/claims from reliable published sources. These do not have to be online sources, though that would of course be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I don't have any intention of changing the title of this article if this is indeed a common name for English native speakers, but it seems the original NACA report  rather nameed it as an "entrance", as the "NACA submerged-duct entraces" seems to be one phrase and you should not stop at "NACA submerged-duct" because this report is not on a duct but on a duct entrance.... I skimmed the report and there are several occasions of "entrance" without "duct" preceding it (like "Entrance aspect ratio" "twin submerged entrances were designed" "In conclusion, it should be stated that submerged entrances have a definite advantage over..."). On the other hand, I could not locate any usage of a single "duct" intended for an inlet/intake/entrace. I could instead see a few occasions of "inlet" in the place of "entrance" (as in "air entering the submerged inlet" in p. 12). So I would conclude the original report by NACA cannot be supporting the title "NACA duct"; if one insists to use the report as the source, it would possibly be "NACA duct entrance" or more precisely "NACA submerged-duct entrance" or something... isn't it?  However, regardless, as I mentioned before, if it is truly common to call this thing as an "NACA duct" in English in present US/UK/etc. I think that's just fine and the title of this Wikipedia article can be kept as it is. --Dynamicsoar (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note! 

message: I don't see much of an indication as to which way the air is moving.  To me, it looks like an exhaust.  On a photo of some on a car hood, the location is back near the windshield.  That looks like an exhaust for the incoming air thru the grille.  Perhaps some illustration would be good. Longinus876 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inlet or Exhaust?
Talk:Aeroacoustics

message: Is aeroacoustics a branch of acoustics or a branch of aeronautics? 90.216.104.199 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be considered as a branch of aerodynamics. Salih (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Not really. Although Aerodynamics deals with gas dynamics, it is mostly concerned with the global forces and moments produced on objects by flow, e.g. lift and drag. Aeronautics has played a very important part in the development of aeroacoustics as we now it today and it remains its most common application. The purpose of Aeroacoustics is to quantify the Noise generated by flow. Aeroacoustics delves into aerodynamics to some extent but it is definitely a branch of Acoustics (which is a branch of Mechanics in its own right). --Jadc197 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branch of acoustics? 

message: The article deals with three quite separate topics:
* Aeroacoustics, a scientific/engineering discipline 
* Aeolian sound, a natural phenomenon with a long history
* The Lighthill tensor, one particular math tool for the study of turbulence-generated sound
Each of these topics clearly deserves a separate article.  One cannot assume, for example, that readers who look up "aeolian sound" will know (or care) about differential equations. And aeroacoustics includes many other things besides the mathematical model, such as engineering materials and methods, policies, etc.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be split 

message: I propose redirecting Lighthill mechanism into here. It is a one sentence article that has not been edited by a user since 2011. There is not much to merge, which was my original intention, so instead I think the redirect is appropriate. Alan Islas (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect proposal
Talk:Blade pitch

message: Article defines pitch using Canadian/British coarse/fine terminology and then goes on to talk about pitch using American high/low terminology. The correspondence is not obvious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.72.103 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, not being an expert in the area it is confusing to me also. I have marked the article as confusing for this reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have explained the terminology and removed the notice. cagliost (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: The article currently says 
"Passive (stall-controlled) wind turbines rely on the fact that angle of attack increases with wind speed. Blades can be designed to stop functioning past a certain speed. This is another use for twisted blades: the twist allows for a gradual stall as each portion of the blade has a different angle of attack and will stop at a different time."
This is a correct summary of the reference given, but is it correct? Angle of attack actually decreases with wind speed. The purpose of blade twist is for each part of the blade to have the same angle of attack. Is it possible that different parts of the blade would stall at different times?
Required blade twist is a function of rotational speed of the propeller. Does it have any relationship with forward speed? cagliost (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stall-controlled wind turbines
Talk:Joukowsky transform

message: The second plot does not do a great job of differentiating between the two transforms. With the high line thickness, the tail of the second airfoil looks just as cusped as the first airfoil. Maybe thinner lines or a more appropriate parameter choice would illustrate this difference more clearly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.82.87 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  karman-trefftz image 

message: Can someone provide some history of when this mathematics was developed, both the pure and the applied, and by whom (if not developed by the namesake).
Also, some explanation of whether these create 'optimal' airfoils for various relative air speeds / viscosity etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.18.227 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History & Usage 

message: I’m not so sure about airfoils, but in other areas of mathematics the convention of using a [-1, 1] interval is much more common than a [-2, 2] interval, i.e. a map z \mapsto \tfrac12(z + z^{-1}). If we want to talk about the relation to the cosine function, orthogonal polynomials, Bernstein ellipses, etc., this is much more natural. Here’s one example of a source using this convention, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00029890.2019.1528814 –jacobolus (t) 03:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would anyone mind if we scale the result of the Joukowsky map by half, so the circle is mapped to the interval [-1, 1]?
Talk:Méchant (band)

message: My name is Regina Zernay, and I'm referenced in the Wikipedia page for the band Halfcocked.
Méchant is my new band, and I wanted to add it to Wikipedia because it's the band that I created after leaving Halfcocked.  I'm sorry, I just didn't want to create a page about myself because I thought it sounded kind of silly, and I wanted to tell anyone who visited the Halfcocked page about the new band I'm in.
I hope that was the right thing to do, but if there's another/better way to do this, please let me know.
Also, is it true that anyone can update a page?  I was hoping I could list the years when I was in Halfcocked on the band's Wikipedia page.
Thanks so much-
Regina
info@mechantmusic.com
Reginazernay 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the article, as it appears to meet criterion 6 of Wikipedia:Notability (music). However, since the band doesn't appear to meet any other criteria, such as multiple releases or nontrivial published reviews, someone may still want to nominate it for formal deletion. Melchoir 01:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a great fan on criterion 6 and this band is another example why. Halfcocked had three albums (on a record label that has had two customers, so "major record label" is kinda questionable...). Regina Zernay played with them on one tour, and now everything that Regina Zernay touches automatically turns into encyclopedic gold... Weregerbil 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 

message: Regina has now joined Cowboy Mouth.  This removes any doubt about notability as they clearly meeet Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. Frog47 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might remove doubt of notability about her. It does still leave significant doubt of notability of this group. LadyofShalott 15:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 

message: Frog47 helpfully added an article for Regina Zernay (now Regina Zernay Roberts). More recently, she was a founding member of Scarlet Fever, playing with Cee Lo Green. So, considerably more notable now! I'm trying to update this page to be a Good Article, but have little experience with band pages. I could use some help here.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010
Talk:Oblique wing

message: It is not true, that the oblique wing concept is originated by Robert T. Jones in 1945. There were at least two german wartime projects, the Blom & Voss P.202 and the Messerschmitt P.1109-01 (both 1944)with a proposed OW design. Designer of the P.202 was Dr. Richard Vogt who came to the US via Paperclip and worked in Air force research facilities then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.159.169 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This is obviously supposed to mean that, for example, in one given design it is always the right wing tip that is swivelled forward from the perpendicular position.
The above phrase though implies that the wing, once swivelled, cannot turn back to perpendicular.
Can anybody think of a better verbalization?--Cancun771 (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of anything right off, but probably needs to say something about swiveling or pivoting rather than turning. - BillCJ (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The mechanism can turn in only one direction

message: This article considers that the oblique configuration is variable only, but there have been demonstrators built with fixed oblique angles, and proposed full-up aircraft with fixed configurations. The article should be repaired. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed oblique wing 

message: This can be adequately covered in the parent article.  2 sentences from a single reference does not an article make RadioFan (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[DSI/NASA Oblique Wing RPV]] 
Talk:Ice fishing

message: I'm trying hard to wrap my head around the Ice Fishing#See also section. As of this moment, it includes links to the following pages:
* Snowmobile skipping
* Plastic worms
* Jigs
* Fishing
* Crappie
* Trout
* Bank Fishing
Now, let's look at these and see if we can decipher why they're here.
First of all, as far as I can tell, "Snowmobile skipping" has nothing whatsoever to do with ice fishing other than the fact that some ice anglers use snowmobiles.
Second, "Plastic worms" and "Jigs" also have nothing to do with ice fishing unless we intend to include links to absolutely everything that an angler might use a bait or as an attractant. Why not links to fishing lure and earthworm and bait fish? It's really kind of silly.
Third, "Fishing" makes sense here, I suppose, but there's already a link to the "Fishing" article in the lede, and rightly so. Having it here, as well, in my opinion, is repetitively redundant. :-)
Fourth, the links to "Crappie" and "Trout", I would argue, are senseless in a very similar way to how "Plastic worms" and "Jigs" are. Are we going to list every type of fish that is a popular quarry for ice anglers? Where do we stop? Why aren't northern pike and walleye here? How many species should we list? How do the species have anything to do with ice fishing, anyway? Should the "Fishing" article list every type of fish that is fished in the world? Should the angling article list every type of fish that is angled?
Fifth, the entry for "Bank fishing" is, in my opinion, really over the top. I've done a hell of a lot of ice fishing over the years and, it seems to me, bank fishing is pretty much the antithesis of ice fishing. Now, it's true that ice anglers, especially brook trout anglers, sometimes hang out on shore with their lines out on the ice but that's not, I don't think, what bank fishing is meant to describe.
In summary, then, I'll strip all of those entries from the section. If there is anyone who feels differently, I'd very much like to hear about it and discuss it here. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was nowt in the See Also section I have removed the heading. If and when there is consensus for a renascent section 'populated' with links, please put the heading back in. All the best, Wavehunter 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns with the [[:Ice fishing#See also]] section

message: Noticed there is no history of ice fishing. When did it start as far as what we know through recorded history. How has it evolved since then?
Thanks. Have a good day. 71.86.180.2 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:Subsonic and transonic wind tunnel

message: This tunnel is not an Eiffel type wind tunnel : 1. the test section is closed, not open (see the Eiffel tunnel view). Because an Eiffel tunnel is generally built inside a closed facility it can be described as a quasi return type tunnel, because the facility walls are in fact the return circuit. Correct legend would be "Schematic of an open wind tunnel". Plxdesi march 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Schematic of Eiffel type open wind tunnel
Talk:Supersonic wind tunnel

message: I was initially curious of the claim by an IP of copyright violation so I tracked back and found this using Google, http://www.aerodyn.org/WindTunnel/ttunnels.html#supersonic 
Thanks IP for your edits,  Ttiotsw 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for record of where the copyright violation seems to have originated.
Talk:Pitching moment

message: This page doesn't have the pitching moment coefficient. It should. —Ben FrantzDale 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just gave it importance "Mid" and rating "Start". —Ben FrantzDale 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coefficient? 

message: In introducing section properties we are confusing the issue somewhat.  The opening paragraph belongs to a separate article on pitching moment coefficient, which should cover effects such as camber, and flaps on section pitching moment, and planform effects on complete wings, possibly including pictures of flow fields and corresponding pressure distributions, around the airfoil sections.
When considering the application of this knowledge to assessing the stability of complete configurations, this basic knowledge is taken as read. The original article was concerned with the effect of all components on the trim and stability of the complete configuration, which is not determined by the mainplane section properties alone.  It would be helpful if an article specifically on airfoil pitching moment coefficient, could be referenced.  
Longitudinal static stability and the physics of generating moments on a lifting surface are obviously related, but they are not the same subject.  Gordon Vigurs 09:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon, thank you for your thoughtfulness.  You are welcome to Wikipedia:Be bold and make the improvements you suggest. Other editors will either agree and continue the work, or disagree and do something different. Thus does Wikipedia improve.  --Jdlh  | Talk 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airfoil or Configuration?

message: On 15 July 2008, contributor 128.158.218.132 posted the following question on Pitching moment.  The question is not asked appropriately within the article, but it is most appropriate for this Talk page:
::Where D and L {indicated} equals ?????, please define.
The question relates to the following equation:
:M_{c/4} = M_\text{indicated} + \mathbf{x}\times (D_\text{indicated}, L_\text{indicated}).
This equation is relevant to measurements made on an aircraft model in a wind tunnel.  I believe the equation states that the pitching moment at the quarter-chord position is equal to the pitching moment indicated by a measuring sensor located distance x from the quarter-chord, plus an increment in pitching moment due to drag (D) measured by the sensor, and an increment in pitching moment due to lift (L) measured by the sensor.  Dolphin51 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question