Talk:Mach tuck

Mach Tuck Recovery
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)

Pedantic Writing!
"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)


 * 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)

Disputed
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"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)


 * I've never heard of this "engulfed" terminology. Unsigned, can you please explain ? Katanada (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)

Inappropriate cause and diagram
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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [Update] So I had a go. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

bizzare expressions
"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)

External links modified
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)

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