Talk:Supercritical airfoil

I agree that these two articles should be merged. They essentially tackle the same subject, and there is some information in the supercritical wing article which would greatly enhance the airfoil article. Maybe merge all of the content into one article called "Supercritical wing", and place a Redirect on the supercritical airfoil page? Or vice versa? User:Jaganath 18:02 5th June 2006


 * Agreed. Not sure which one is best.  moink 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no 'supercritical wing'. The supercritical airfoil technology is in principle a two-dimensional (airfoil) thing. Furthermore, all important things about the supercritical airfoil is written in the article about 'supercritical airfoil'. So I think one should merge the articles in a sence of more or less deleting the article 'supercritical wing' or perhaps use some few things of it. 14:19, 16 June 2006


 * Agree. 71.231.203.169 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. --Keizo 23:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I favour merging and suggest appropriate links to avoid the problem identified by Moink. 15 August 2006

Converging-diverging nozzles, redundancy
I reverted Arnero's edits, in part because I had difficulty detangling the prose, and in part because from what I could tell, most of the edit simply explained how any airfoil produces lift. The half-nozzle argument, if I recall correctly (but alas cannot cite) is on the list of erroneous explanations of lift production. Besides, if I understood the argument correctly, the claim was that the half-CD nozzle wouldn't slow the flow back down after its "narrowest" point. However, the airfoil is subsonic, and the shock is produced after the narrow point (throat). A CD nozzle being operated with a subsonic inlet which is still subsonic at its throat will be subsonic throughout. Arnero, if you read this, please jump in, as it's possible I simply couldn't understand your thoughts. Patrick O&#39;Leary (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Supercritical airfoil Mach Number/pressure coefficient diagram.
This diagram is hard to intepret with knowing what the x- and y-axes represent. Can anyone help explain what they are? Mach speed on the x (horizontal)? Pressure the y (vertical)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.124.226 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Technicality
I added the technical tag and believe it is appropriate, but I think that this article can be fixed of that problem if some phrases are simply reworded or re-ordered more intuitively, so the reader can follow the concept more linearly. There's plenty of good information here, but it just seems not to be put together in the best way. Thoughts? Spiral5800 (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out the article Beta Angle for what I'm talking about. I've gone to great pains to make that article, which is about a relatively obscure and technical topic, understandable and accessible to virtually any wikipedian.  It's a work in progress still; I am constantly reviewing articles that I am involved in so that I can make them more accurate and more intuitive and understandable.  Few things are more frustrating than looking something up in the encyclopedia and ending up more confused after reading the article than you were before you started! Spiral5800 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No longer merits technical tag
This article is clearly compact by design--instead of elaborating on ostensibly difficult ideas, contributors have linked to separate articles where those concepts are fleshed out in appropriate detail.

I am not condemning the decision to apply the technical tag--this article has since had the benefit of three-plus years' improvement. It is short enough that I have read it several times; I am confident that every term or concept that might be unfamiliar to the typical American is linked to another article for further reference. Patronanejo (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The "too technical" tag should be removed. The article is very easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.59 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Reduction to simplicity
When a flow of air hits a body, and moving a body through the air is the same as if the body were fixed and the air moved towards it, two possibilities exist: either a laminar flow, when all the air layers circulate in an ordered way, or a turbulent one, when the air swirls and no longer follows a regular pathway, nor the shape of the body. There are so called "laminar airfoils" that do have a much reduced drag when airborne, but are sensible to things as cleanliness of surface, above a dirty surface the air no longer flows in a laminar way, and when above an airfoil flow becomes turbulent, big losses in efficiency of wing result, (the air in the upper part of wings flows faster than in the lower part, thus producing a decrease in pressure in the upper part of wing, and an increase in pressure in the lower part, this is the reason why wings do produce lift to keep the airplane flying), if in the upper part of airfoil the air flow changes from laminar to turbulent, after the transition point, an increase in pressure results, the wing loses lifting power, and the drag of moving the wing thru the air sharply increases. The Supercritical airfoils do shift behind the point when a higher airspeed would change the airflow from laminar to turbulent, thus increasing the speed range where the wing has a good efficiency, and also decreasing power and fuel needs of the airplane.--Jgrosay (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about what is good about these wings.
WHat disadvantages exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.141 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)