Talk:Supersonic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Come help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics moink 23:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Merge from transonic
- Merge - Jack (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't merge - transonic aerodynamics is quantitively and qualitively different from supersonic.WolfKeeper 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't merge - Wolfkeeper's assertion is correct. These are two different realms of flow.
- Don't merge - Transonic will become an important qualifying characteristic of some next-gen commercial aircraft.
- Don't merge - Wolfkeeper's assertion is correct. These are two different realms of flow.
As such, it is a perfectly valid category in itself and the input towards this wiki subject will only expand.
I have removed the merge tag from the articles. I has been around for almost 3 months or more and not many people except Jack have asked for the merger. If you feel it should still be there, be my guest. btw I vote for not merging, for there is significant difference between the two flow regimes, especially in the numerical simulation. myth 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from hypersonic
- Merge - Jack (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't merge - I don't see any advantage to merging; and it seems cleaner to keep them separate articles.WolfKeeper 22:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely do NOT merge - Hypersonic is not simply a faster version of supersonic. A gas undergoing hypersonic flow is chemically reacting while supersonic flow is assumed to be chemically inert. The aerodynamics of a supersonic vehicle is strongly a function of Mach number while the aerodynamics of a hypersonic vehicle is insensitive to Mach number. The mathematics describing the thermodynamics of supersonic flow can be expressed in closed form. However the mathematics for hypersonic flow requires a computer solution. The two flows definitely require separate articles. Egg plant 04:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't merge - completely different regimes. Maury 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As this tag has been on a while with only Jack wanting a merge I have removed it. I hope that doesn't cause too much offence. Rex the first talk | contribs 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] From PNA/Aerospace
- Supersonic - very sparse, lots of history and aerodynamics to talk about. Trevor MacInnis 17:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i don't think this should be merged into either transonic or hypersonic. all three of these represent different aspects of aerodynamics.
-
- Disagree: Each of these article (supersonic and hypersonic flows) can be expanded further. Also many effect of hypersonic flow are not applicable for supersonic flow. I am not sure of the transonic flow article, maybe that can be merged with supersonic flows, but would to know what others have to say about that. myth 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vibration
Can you still substantially feel the passage through the sound barrier in modern-day supersonic aircraft? MadMaxDog 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Superscript textStrike-through textStrike-through text
umm can eyebrows be super sonic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.85.166.209 (talk) -- JohnCub 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
