Talk:Aerodynamics

message: Since people editing here probably know a little a about aerodynamics, it would be nice to have a section on the Bee article to discuss the flight of bees.
In part I'm asking because on Sunday :Image:Bee mid air.jpg is due to be the Picture of the day|Picture of the Day. However, at the moment I'm not too happy with the caption as it is a bit too general - it would seem better to mention the common misconceptions about bees not being able to fly. -- Solipsist 09:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the statement is attributable to some of the earliest investigations into aerodynamics, notably the derivation of the lift equation, which is an empirical formula based on observation of aerofoil sections in wind tunnels. According to the lift equation, Bees supposedly can't fly because the wing area, lift coefficient and weight of the bee don't fit the equation. All this says is that the equation is inadequate for bee flight, since bees obviously can fly. However, for some reason this statement entered the popular imagination, which probably says a lot about the presentation and understanding of science by the wider population. As far as I recall, the mystery was only really solved quite recently, perhaps as recently as the 1990s - whereby new research indicates that insect flight takes advantage of a variety of dynamic effects such as the formation of vortices by the rapid wing vibration which cancel much of the induced drag. In addition, insect flight needs to be analysed at much lower Reynolds numbers than aircraft flight, since for the insect, the viscosity of the air is much greater relative to its size. That all said, don't treat this as a valid source, it's just what I can remember reading in the past. I'm sure you can find more reliable sources if you search. Graham 00:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bees in flight

message: please correct it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.3.254.194 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling in continuity assumption 

message: I'm going to spend some time expanding this page over the next month or so - I've already started with the history section.  If anyone wants to help out or has issues/questions, leave them on my talk page.  EMBaero 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Perhaps all the great information in this article should instead appear in the Gas dynamics page.  That way all the pages that link to this article from the word "aerodynamic", could instead link to Gas dynamics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.24.208 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gas dynamics

message: The only equation in the article is an incorrect one. Would it be unreasonable to have basic equations e.g. for lift and drag of a flat sheet, or something similar in the article? Right now, it's pretty devoid of technical content.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.191.214 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  High level feedback 

message: This article needs to have a section on aerodynamic friction & aerodynamic heating;
and it also need one on computational aerodynamics.
It would also be nice to at least mention the Navier-Stokes Equations. 98.81.15.87 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sections needed 

message: Hi there.  The current "Further Reading" section is currently quite a lengthy list of useful reference texts - useful for professionals, but perhaps not for the general reader.  What are other editors' thoughts on this section?  I'm inclined to cut it out, per WP:NOT - not an indiscriminate collection of information, neither textbook nor teaching site, not a collection of links, but it's a big change so I'm soliciting other thoughts. Corvus coronoides talk 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading WP:FURTHER I would say that the list should be substantially trimmed, for example by deleting most works on sub-topics, but not deleted wholesale. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Thinking further, any half-decent technical bookshop will have a modern textbook on aerodynamics. And there are so many textbooks around that any selection here will be PoV based and worthless. Then again, what one might call important "milestone" publications should be listed among the references. Not sure if anything will survive that amount of pruning, but still better to consider each case rather than delete wholesale. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriateness of Further Reading section?

message: Substituted at 06:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aerodynamics. 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/20090617225411/http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca:80/Training/Aerodynamics/index.html to http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/Training/Aerodynamics/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Aerodynamics. 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/20080920052758/http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/Cayley/PH2.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/Cayley/PH2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511071413/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt1.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511041814/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt2.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511052409/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt3.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt3.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/Training/Aerodynamics/index.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) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The relationship as I understand it is that fluid dynamics is the study of liquids and gases and the changes they undergo due to processes such as heat, movement, and pressure, and gas dynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics.
I think the phrasing that aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics and gas dynamics is confusing because fluid dynamics includes the study of gases.
THis is my justification for rewording the lead. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between Fluid Dynamics and Gas Dynamics