Talk:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Old Talk
[To facilitate editing sections of this talk, I'm introducing "==" headings. Hope no one minds. --Rocksci 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

I'm Japanese. You may think this is funny question, but please let me know, how do you pronounce NACA? Is this pronouced continiously like NASA or NATO (or like n-a-k-a)? Or separetely as RAF (or like enu-ei-see-ei)? (I have some more words like this. Are there some web pages relating this kind of problem?) -- Marsian 16:26, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ashley! Now I can pronounce it with confidence. By the way, the NACA inlet is also used in (relatively low-speed?) aircraft, perhaps mainly for air conditioning. - Marsian 10:58, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

I'm thinking I should change "NACA duct, a form of air intake" to NACA duct, a boundary layer scoop". Am I getting too tekkie? The scoop functions in the boundary layer, so it can be flush-mounted, so less drag. It's used for various intake purposes in aviation, & notably as an extractor scoop in NASCAR. Trekphiler 11:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that is too techie for here. Edit the NACA scoop article if you think more explanation is needed. --agr 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Expansion

I concur, this article definitely needs expansion. Things that need to be addressed: A short chronological history might be good, but heavily overlaps the other pieces I've listed. --Rocksci 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * origins - including role of Orville Wright
 * contributions - major areas of research (yes, there are a lot; highlights would be good
 * organization - list of directors, the NACA centers, how it operated
 * transformation into NASA

NACA Technical Reports

The NACA Techical Report server is no longer active at Langley. It has been merged into the "NASA Technical Reports Server (NSTR)" at http://nstr.nasa.gov. Therefore, the citation under External Links should be replaced; but with what?? --Rocksci 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New content by wikipedia newbie

I can add a few things to this article, however, I'm a wikipedia newbie so some "polishing" might be needed.--Racingjs 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wind Tunnels
The list of wind tunnels does not tell if they are at Langley, Ames, or elsewhere. The 40x80 is at Ames, but is not on the list. --Rocksci 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Special Committee on Space Technology
This section describes Von Braun as the chief engineer of the V-1. Despite what the corroborating articles say, I am certain that Von Braun played little or no part in the V-1 program. Penemunde was split into Luftwaffe (V-1) and Army (V-2) sections which had nothing to do with each other beyond the sharing of some infrastructure. Our own V-1 article says that "The V-1 was designed by Robert Lussar of the Fieseler company and Fritz Gosslau from the Argus engine works". Vgy7ujm 04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Director of NACA, role of Hugh Dryden
Elsewhere, Hugh Dryden is listed as becoming Director of NACA in 1947 -- initially just Director of Aeronautical Research, and then just Director. Apparently, this is different from being Chairman of NACA. It seems to me that he figures more prominently in NACA history than many of the chairmen. It seems this post did not exist before his appointment. Is this so? Why was it created? Dryden, of course, went on to be Associate Administrator of NASA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksci (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion tag
Is it time to remove the expansion tag I added here in August of 2006? It's definitely not a stub anymore. -- Strangelv (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removed. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead OR
What exactly is OR in the Lead about NACA ducts, airfoils, and cowlings? All of these have corraborating articles. I added the Fact tag before I looked at the 3 articles, but having seen them, I don't think it even needs the Fact tag now. All three are common in their respective fields. - BilCat (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrasing (assertions) need(s) to be cited. For example who says: "The name remains familiar in the automotive world" for the NACA duct, a type of air intake, or "to those in the aircraft industry,..." or "as several series of NACA airfoils and NACA cowling are still being used in new designs". --Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see OR there. I've come across several uses of NACA airfoils mentioned in Flying, & rodders have been using NACA ducts since at least the '80s, with published pics in major mags. (No, I don't have any of them at hand...)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, if a statement such as, for example, "The name remains familiar in the automotive world" can be verified per WP:V and WP:RS by a citation, then we do not have a WP:OR problem. If not, then this is OR. I wouldn't disagree to modify these statements so that they can be attributed to a reliable source and thus eliminate the OR inherently present in unverifiable statements. In other words someone must have reached a conclusion that "The name remains familiar in the automotive world" and published it in a reliable source for us to use it. If we came up with it, out of our own experience, it is, unfortunately, OR. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I find that a ridiculously high standard. It's on a par with being unable to compare the complexity of Operation MB8 with that of Battle of Midway without a 3d party source (a single one) saying they're both complex. Isn't use in, or appearance in, major magazines enough to demonstrate continued familiarity? Or are the writers & editors all idiots? Or what?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I came here to discuss a few points. If you start using terms like "idiots" and edit summaries like "huh" I don't think I can help you further because I just don't like your tone. On the other hand the matter can be referred to WP:ORN for further clarification. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one demanding such high standards. And you appear to think magazine writers & editors who have mentioned these things are stupid unless there's additional sourcing beyond their use. If that's mistaken, feel free to correct me. As for my "tone", I can't help that it doesn't come out in text as well as in speech. Nor can I help your being offended.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. If you know of any magazine editor who said that "The NACA name remains familiar in the automotive world" etc. etc., then this discussion is over. No OR, no problem. I hope you realise when we make statements like the one I just used as an example we must attribute them to someone. Otherwise these statements are by default our own, ergo OR. Also what does "automotive world" mean? Is it the American automotive world? the European? Does it include the Big Three? Aftermarket brands? Among its other problems this phrasing is also vague. Also we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. High standards come with the turf. Anyway if we cannot find citations to support these statements maybe we can rephrase to something more verifiable. I am open to suggestions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a strong proponent of BilCat (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained my reasons for removing these statements as OR but when my edit was partially undone I did not insist on removing them again per WP:BRD. However they need rephrasing and citations in order to become verifiable. You are also correct that I primarily opposed the pronunciation guide. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you know of any magazine editor who said that 'The NACA name remains familiar in the automotive world'" Which is, to some degree, my problem with your complaint. Isn't use enough? That is, they're appearing in the mags themselves, or writers/editors are referring to them in use. IMO, that's evidence enough. You appear to disagree & demand an explicit "We see them all the time" from staffers. I find that excessive.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you know the answer to that. You are an experienced user and I am sure you understand that we cannot survey the literature on the subject and then announce in the article that a lot of magazines cover the duct. Someone else ideally must do the survey and then publish it in a reliable source for us to be able to use it. But given that an elementary Google search reveals that the NACA ducts are used in high- performance automotive applications and given that there is no third-party reporting of their extensive use in that industry, I am amenable to including this fact as long as we rephrase because I think the expression "automotive world" is too OR. As far as the rest of the paragraph involving the NACA cowlings and airfoils maybe we can cover it with citations the same creative way. It is an ad-hoc approach and not strictly adhering to WP:OR and other policies but given the lack of third-party sources this may be the best we can do at present. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "I think you know the answer to that." I don't, actually, because I keep seeing conflicting opinion on what is, or isn't, OR. Or, at least, what passes the "deletion test". If the claim was "in widespread use in the auto industry", I'd want a cite, yes. (Even here, if there were pix of numerous models with NACA ducts, or a long list, even if no source said it expressly, I'd OK it.) It isn't, AFAI can tell, it's "known in" or "used in", which seems to me to be met by examples of use, plus (say) the author saying, "this is in use" (if not "common use") or "this is familiar". Put it another way (because I have an article in mind; I just can't recall where from...): if a mag article says, "The NACA duct is familiar to hot rodders", in a piece on installing (or building) one, does that pass? Because, unless I'm misunderstanding you (& may be), you're saying that's a fail. How about a piece that mentions an NACA airfoil? That seems clear evidence to me NACA airfoils are still in use, but, again, it would appear to fail your test. I guess I have trouble with any conclusion of any kind being called "OR". Is reading one article on the '65 Mustang & one the '66 GTO, each with quarter times, then saying one is quicker "OR" (or "synthesis")? (OK, maybe that's an extreme example; it's an illustration only.) By the strict definition, it would appear to be; it would appear to be by yours, also. It's that kind of nitpicking I'm afraid this will encourage, & we're already getting it. Take a look at this & this. I don't want to encourage more of the same.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  04:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, we should probably focus onnb rewriting the text to have less of a disputable claim. However, I'm at a loss as how best to rewrite it. We should just propose some rewrites here, and see if we can establish a consesus on an acceptable version. - BilCat (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At Trekphiler: You asked: <tt>if a mag article says, "The NACA duct is familiar to hot rodders", in a piece on installing (or building) one, does that pass?</tt> It would pass, not by much but it would. Among your other examples such as articles mentioning airfoils and taken as evidence of use, I agree that they can be used as a last resort but they are not indisputably correct. From your reply, however, I can see that you are very familiar with the issues surrounding OR, just as I expected and it seems our views are not that far apart because you identify the same issues I am concerned about. Now to reply to Bilcat, I edited the following quote into the article yesterday. Therefore I propose it. It is not perfect but I think it is less OR than the previous version. Please modify, edit, remove, revert at will. I will not mind. The whole deal here is that we have three NACA products; the duct, the cowling and the airfoils, and we want to package their info to the reader that they survived the demise of NACA and prospered well into the 1980s. 1990s and even to this day. Our responsibility is to make the packaging, i.e. the context, as compliant with the WP:OR policy as we can.

"NACA research and development produced the NACA duct, a type of air intake used in modern automotive applications, the NACA cowling, and several series of NACA airfoils which are still used in aircraft manufacturing."
 * Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At first glance, that's acceptable to me. It keeps the fact that NACA technology has modern uses, but without making any claims on "familiarity" and scope. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you BilCat. That was exactly my aim. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're wlecom. I missed the change in the article yesterday, which is why I hadn't commented on it before. I think we briefly mentioned a rewrite before, then got bogged down in a discussion quagmire. It happens sometimes. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right about quagmires. They do tend to happen and I've been in a few of them myself. :) I also didn't know about a previous discussion, thank you for the information. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "it seems our views are not that far apart because you identify the same issues I am concerned about. " I confess surprise. :) It seemed to me we had a chasm between us. I am pleased to be mistaken.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Live long and prosper. :) Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 14:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on NACA reports
Those interested in this page may also be interested in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_2 which discusses the fate of a large number of copied NACA reports here on Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NACA & Fundamental Research
I was reading a documentary which said that NACA during the 1920's vigorously defended its mission as THE source of theoretical aeronautical research. When exactly in the '20's was this? 24.44.68.12 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Promotional tone not appropriate
On July 7 the article was expanded quite a bit by who brought in text with a strongly promotional tone. The text was based on the following sources:
 * https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/WWII.html
 * From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy Research Project Winners, 1998, P.89 (This is written by John D. Anderson, Jr., one of the chapters of the larger book, the chapter hosted here online.)

These are published by NASA/NACA and cannot be considered perfectly neutral on the topic. It's a violation of WP:UNDUE to place so much text into the article based on these writings. Such rah-rah writings will outweigh and overshadow the more neutral and even cynical views of NACA that are expressed in the literature. For instance, Warren M. Bodie, who wrote the definitive book on the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, describes NACA as terribly inefficient, as moving far too slowly to suit the needs of a wartime aeronautics program, and that Lockheed engineers performing research at NACA wind tunnels were responsible for some of the advancements for which NACA seems to take credit in these new sources.

We should roll back the article and bring the new sources in with a measured eye to whether a promotional tone is present. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed a particularly objectionable tone, myself. I'm more concerned with the OT material on everything from the P-38 to the B-58, none of which is on-point for this page. (Maybe once that's settled, the tone can be addressed?) Nor have I a problem with contrary or additional views; the more, the merrier. It appears any change is too much for, however...  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  02:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) (P.S. Thx for finding the author, Bink. That we should add. :) )


 * As the person who submitted it, I am perfectly fine with the "tone" or the form being altered. It is the seeming obsession with the complete removal of all NASA aviation related information which is what I object to. NASA continued to run the three major aerodynamics locations inherited from NACA, and the article previously had no mention of ANY NASA or NACA involvement. Its as if its second largest division seemingly did not exist.


 * I am not opposed to the rewriting or changing the view of its aerospace projects, but completely ignoring the entire aviation field is not really a reasonable thing to do for the leading government agency involved in said field.


 * As a counter argument to the opinions on NACA/NASA, Burt Rutan and Elon Musk view NASA much more highly than they view major aerospace companies. It is natural for individual engineers to dislike large Aerospace companies, and for aerospace companies to dislike NASA. But to ignore the free facilities, grants, contracts, and the analysis efforts of its personnel is not really a commendable thing to do. Kelly Johnson once complained that he was worried about NASA releasing information useful to the Russians, and claimed that they were not doing anything that had not been done before. Yet the results of the supposedly "same" testing resultd in significant improvements to the Blackbird family, and solved issues that Johnson had not been able to overcome in years of research, development, and operations. Its only natural to dislike government bureaucracy, but to completely ignore its involvement or successes is not really reasonable. Especially on its own page. An opinion is simply an opinion, and does not warrant ignoring or removing the entire involvement of an entire agency off of their page.


 * Editing, condensing, or clarifying information is more than acceptable. Thats the entire purpose. But completely removing mentions of its second largest department, and the major projects it was involved with, is not really reasonable.


 * It should also be noted that some of the advanced being attributed to company engineers could not have been possible without NACA/NASA, as the only link between discoveries at separate companies was that NACA/NASA was involved, documented the discoveries properly, and shared the joint discoveries. NACA and NASA were meant to be the "midwife" of aerospace, and so much of their work is to encourage sharing of information and the documentation and distribution of NACA/NASA involved discoveries.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠"I am perfectly fine with the 'tone' or the form being altered" You've done nothing so far but rv any changes to it, so I'm not clear how "fine" you are with any changes at all. Looking at this edit, all I see is you rv'g changes that are legitimately in service of taking out material not the topic of the page, plus corrections to capitalization, link piping, redundant linking, & type identification. So what part of that don't you object to?
 * ♠I'm less concerned about the NASA adds, myself, but I'd say they should also be deleted entire: if they were run by NASA, they belong on the NASA page, with suitable links to this one to "grandfather them in".   TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  04:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, the reasons you gave and the edits you made were not the same. You also directed us to post this information here instead of the NASA page, while simultaneously completely deleting the information from this page. Which one is it? Does it belong here, or does it not? As you have already been repeatedly told. You are in violation of the guidelines on good faith edits, and the reasons you posted for reverting the pages were not valid for reverting in the first place. They were reasons for editing. A SPELLING ERROR OR DUPLICATE LINKS IS NOT A REASON TO COMPLETELY REMOVE DECADES WORTH OF IMPORTANT SUBJECTS ON A PAGE. Completely removing an entire subject is not the solution to minor mistakes or poor form/tone. The edits you made WERE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE REASONS YOU LISTED. If you are going to make changes, please at least be honest about what you are doing. Please also keep in mind that if something happenes ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PAGE, you cannot give that as a reason for changing another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PAGE. Something that happened on the NASA page doesnt not warrant a reason to remove a completely different edit on the NACA page. They are two completely different pages. And it especially is unwarranted seeing as how YOU PERSONALLY RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE PUT ON THIS PAGE INSTEAD OF THE NASA ONE.


 * As everyone else can see, You removed things like the segway between the P-38 research and the X-1. You removed THE ENTIRE INVOLVEMENT OF THE NACA COMPRESSIBILITY DIVISION, despite one of its engineers being co-awarded along side Chuck Yeager. How is removing the entire involvement of an entire division of NASA somehow a change to form or tone? How is removing the involvement of NACA in the X-1 a change of form or tone? How is removing NACA involvment in solving the F-102 issues a change in form or tone? How is removing the success of the F-11F a change of form or tone? Its not. You cut nearly every success or involvement, why they were interconnnected, and left it an out of context mess.


 * How is ANY of those changes somehow validated by the reasons you gave? Minor punctuation mistakes, redundant linking, things of that nature do merit removal of ENTIRE SECTIONS and involvement of the agency, or the important highlights of the aircraft involved.


 * How is NACA involvement not on topic on the very page for NACA? How does minor mistakes justify removing their involvement in major advancements? None of the reasons you gave were related to the ACTUAL changes you made.


 * The reason for your revisions and the sections you changed did no coincide. You randomly and subjectively cut out large amounts of information that supplied CONTEXT to the situation. It left some sections completely lop sided in comparison to the other sections, and for no logical reason. You cannot remove huge amounts of important accomplishments and justify it because of minor semantics. If there was a minor issue you needed to change, fixing the problem is not an issue. Removing entire sections without citing valid reasons is against wikipedia guidelines. So is MISLABELING YOUR CHANGES TO THE PAGE DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠Your hysterical tone isn't helping your case, y'know...
 * ♠Looking at this edit, I don't see an "entire section" deleted. If you want to add the few words that are, where they actually connect to the X-1, I'm fine with that.
 * ♠I never directed you to post anything here. A lot of what you want here belongs on the NASA page (maybe), with links here. (I'm not at all sure just what you want to put in.)
 * ♠There is no part of any edit I made that wasn't connected to the edit summary. I certainly made none that were deliberately deceptive, & your accusations are insulting. So is your shouting.
 * ♠I'm seeing no sign here of any "total removal" from the X-1 project. What, exactly, are you talking about?
 * ♠I did remove extraneous mentions of the F-102, F11F (it's wasn't F-11 at the time, & if you don't know that, maybe you're not as smart as you think), B-58, & SR-71, because they're not germane to this page. If you want to add that information, do it at the subject pages. Do it with better citing & sources; at the very least, the author's name & place of publication?
 * ♠As for the deletion of the "V-1" reference, that, too, has damn all to do with NACA. It might be warranted on Bode's bio page, but it's not here.
 * ♠Anything I missed? Or do you have more accusations of vandalism you'd like to make?  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  22:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. 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/20070928044802/http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Group=60&ID=1004 to http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Group=60&ID=1004

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) 07:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. 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/20090920093817/http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Erickson/erickson.pdf to http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Erickson/erickson.pdf

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  <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(Report bug) 17:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

= Reference to NACA = https://www.hoopladigital.com/play/11763252/0 https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11763252 There is a educational series of videos that could be used as an additional reference called It references about fifteen minutes in the first link on the first video on the series (to access it may require a participating library subscription)