Talk:Circulation control wing

In the Powering the wing section it states that a reduction in engine power production defies the purpose of the wing. I would suggest it would be better stated as Powering the wing requires air from the engine which reduces the available thrust. This also means that when the engine is at a lower thrust setting there is less air available for the wing. This is unfortunate as more air is needed during landing to aid control at low speed. Because of this the buccaneer tended to land with high thrust settings and used airbrakes to keep it's speed down to ensure that it had air for its blown flaps. JPelham (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Blown Flaps?
Article states earlier versions were called blown flaps. I could be mistaken, but from reading this and the abstract for paywalled ref., it seems these were never implemented in a production aircraft after over 60yrs of study, while blown flaps have been used in many cases. These seem more like an idea that hasn't panned out than something that replaced blown flaps, as the current phrasing implies. Fitzhugh (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My view on the matter is that CCW is a family of design strategies that have one thing in common - all use an external energy source to provide a maximum lift coefficient that is greater than the wing could achieve in the absence of the extra energy. The blown flap is one example of such a design strategy, using compressed air from the engine to raise the maximum lift coefficient.
 * Other design strategies have been explored, but they are not called “blown flaps” - for example, boundary layer suction has the potential to delay the stall and raise the maximum lift coefficient but it isn’t called blown flaps.
 * The article would be improved if the topic is described more accurately. I will make a suitable change. Dolphin ( t ) 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)