Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 April 1

= April 1 =

Trisonic?
Is there an actual adjective "trisonic" which is defined as "capable of reaching or exceeding Mach 3" (as used by a certain aviation documentary in the episode about the XB-70 Valkyrie)? If so, would a Mach 2 aircraft such as the Douglas Skyrocket or Fairey FD2 be described as bisonic? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In English there is no authority for deciding whether something is "actually" a word. However, none of the online dictionaries searched by [http://www.onelook.com] has a listing for "trisonic", and neither does the OED Online. A Google Books search finds quite a number of uses of "trisonic", but not necessarily with the sense that the original poster asked about.  Many of them are a brand name for audio equipment; many others are used without explanation.  Most of these are references to  "trisonic" wind tunnels, which in this patent is explained as referring to operation, not at Mach 3, but in three different speed regimes: subsonic, transonic, supersonic). This explanation is also given by Wikipedia at Trisonic Wind Tunnel (El Segundo, California).  I did not find any instances where it referred to Mach 3&mdash;until I added "Mach 3" as a second search term.  Then I did find it, for example here in Wikipedia and here in the New Scientist.


 * Conclusion: the word has been used with that meaning, but not very commonly. Now you can decide whether it's an "actual" word. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A word like "bisonic" sounds like it has to do with bison. The problem with bisonic or trisonic is that they both qualify as "supersonic". You're more likely to hear Mach 1, 2, 3, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there is (or at least was) actually a plane called the "Bison", but it couldn't reach Mach 2 or even Mach 1 -- its closest counterpart in terms of size and performance was our B-52. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I found "bisonic" suggested for Mach 2 flight in Flight magazine, 12 March 1954 by an angry anti-American man from Birmingham. The term is also used in Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965 (p. 33) by John Fricker (1979):"... the bisonic achievements of the rocket-propelled Bell X-1A (M=2.5) and the Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket..."
 * Also Lockheed aircraft since 1913 p. 329 by René J. Francillon (1987): "...the programme appeared to move smoothly towards providing the Air Force with its first bisonic fighter."
 * Also in Considérations dans les projects de systèmes pour les aéronefs tactiques et non pilotés published by the NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (1998): "By an operational point of view, the excellent bisonic design of the F-104 has no reason to be changed even if the Mach 2+ performance relevant to the clean aircraft... will be not exploited any more".
 * Also by the website of the Pacific Aviation Museum, Pearl Harbor: "Fortunately, the Air Defense Command was concerned that the bisonic Consolidated F-106 Delta Dart interceptor was behind schedule..." Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected your confusing error as to the date of the Flight issue. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few other hits from various other aviation journals and internet forums. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good finds. That one guy, in 1954, strikes me as just a tad bitter about things. But it does seem that despite some attempts, the terms bisonic, trisonic, etc. just never caught on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Writing indignant letters has a long and distinguished pedigree for a certain class of Englishman (and a few women too), see Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
 * Bisonic and trisonic do seem to have some usage in a specialist aviation context, so could be described as jargon. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)