Talk:NACA duct

Suggested Addition
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)

Note!
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)


 * "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)

I added text explaining the error in the title by parsing the words of the title. Now, can we move it and end this institutionalization of a misnomer? It might be a common name in your view, but to an aerodynamicist, its the equivalent of calling an apple an orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

I have provided full, complete, final, absolute, total, authorotative PROOF! that the people that invented the thing called it a DUCT Any further argument of this point is an act of bad faith. Roger (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Inlet or Exhaust?
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) Oops. I see it on the illustration. Missed that the first time around. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)