 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
"My understanding"
editFound the below text in the article. It is poorly worded for an encyclopedia and also seems to be original research:
Possible correction to the section regarding Cal Tech wind tunnel testing of the Davis wing.
It is my understanding that the initial Cal Tech wind tunnel test on the Davis wing did not show any readings, because the wing was literally "off the scale" (i.e., Cal Tech's instruments would not register at that higher level). At the insistence of the Consolidated folks, Cal Tech then recalibrated their instruments and reran the tests, and reran them more than the three times noted.
Source: Notes taken directly from discussion group of original Consolidated Aircraft B-24 design engineers conducted in 1989 in San Diego, CA at original home of Consolidated (later Convair, General Dynamics, etc.).[unreliable source?]
Modern UAVs
editHas anyone seen modern military drones on television news programs? The wings on some models look exactly like the Davis wing. Since these drones fly exceptionally slow in orbiting a target area, it would not suprise me if the designers used a tried and true design. 70.246.232.140 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Instruments, P-51
edit"Initial results of the Caltech wind tunnel tests were disappointing. Test instruments did not support Davis' predictions. However, Davis and others determined that the Caltech wind tunnel's instruments were not sufficiently sensitive to detect improvements from the Davis wing tests, despite being among the most sophisticated of their kind at the time. Re-calibration of the Caltech wind tunnel instruments, tests showed significantly improved readings.[1]
The results of the wind tunnel test were so good they were unbelievable." If the instruments were so imprecise that they couldn't even measure the difference between the Davis wing, they must have been really imprecise if they failed to spot the fact that the wing was so good it was "unbelievable". Doesn't really make much sense. If the wing was that good, some indication must have registered on the equipment. If not, then the equipment was so poor as to be almost useless. Next, it says "In retrospect, the cross-section shows some resemblance to the NACA 6-series airfoils used on the North American P-51 Mustang." I don't see how a thick, teardrop shaped wing could in many ways resemble the ultra-thin fighter plane wing design on the P-51. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)