Talk:Critical Mach number

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

UPPER CRITICAL MACH NO was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 November 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Critical Mach number. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Merge this article with Critical Mach number[edit]

This article should be merged with critical Mach number for several reasons. The concepts are different, but closely related. The meaning of the term varies based on the context. One usage (currently the article entitled critical Mach number) is from aviation and refers to aircraft dynamics and controllability, while the other usage (currently the article entitled critical mach) is from pure aerodynamics. Having two separate articles allows the possibility that link will be made to the wrong article of the two. Additionally, the two concepts actually are both referred to as critical Mach number. It is somewhat nonsensical to refer to critical mach without the word number, since the Mach number is the concept to which the term refers, whereas Mach is the name of the man after whom the Mach number was named. MarcusMaximus 07:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MarcusMaximus. The expression "Critical Mach" is simply shorthand for "Critical Mach Number". There is no difference so there shouldn't be two articles on the one subject. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

critical mach number verses drag divergence mach number[edit]

the article says that the critical mach number was responsible for the so called "sound barrier," I was under the impression (I'll get sources later) that the sound barrier was caused by drag divergence. That is the sound barrier was caused by what looked like an exponential increase in drag that many guessed would go to infinty as mach 1 was approached. This wasn't true.. drag levels off and eventually decreases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cole.christensen (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You may be right, however at the time the practical problem was more one of control than drag. As you probably know, as speed increases towards Mach 1.0 the centre of pressure moves rearwards causing the aircraft to become increasingly nose-heavy and requiring more and more up-elevator to maintain the angle of flight, i.e., to prevent a dive that becomes steeper and steeper causing the aircraft to bunt, however eventually the pilot runs out of up-elevator (the elevators are in the fully 'up' position) or he lacks the strength (pre powered controls) to pull harder on the control column (due to the aerodynamic load on the control surfaces) and an ever-steepening dive ensures. As speed increases further (due to gravity) the shock wave formed at the nose of the flying surfaces moves rearward until it coincides with the hinge-line of the elevators and ailerons. At this point the controls have no effect and so recovery from the dive becomes difficult if not impossible (that was the reason for the 'all flying tail'). The only saving grace for this situation was that these sort of speeds (at the time) could only be reached by diving from high altitudes where the air is rarefied/colder compared to lower heights, the speed of sound being lower, so as the dive continued the altitude decreased and the speed of sound rose relative to the actual airspeed until the aircraft was no longer affected and the pilot could then regain control. For most of the non-test pilots concerned this was more what the term 'sound barrier' meant rather than any other (more technical) meaning. Ian Dunster 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definition of Critical Mach Number is just plain wrong. Mcrit is that airspeed at which the aircraft first experiences localized supersonic flow. All aircraft have a critical mach number and many with high speed flight capabilities (WW2 fighters on) can experience it. Force divergent mach number is the speed at which normal shock (compression) waves are formed and coefficient of drag increases sharply (approximately 105% of critical mach). R / CrusaderF8, Sept 2 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderF8 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli's principle[edit]

Bernoulli's principle is described as being responsible for the wing generating lift. This conflicts with the this article. One or the other must be wrong. Would somebody who knows about this make the necessary changes, please? AJKGORDON «» 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

As a totally uninformed person on this subject, the introduction to this article makes no sense to me. It talks about "lower critical Mach number" and "upper critical Mach number" but the rest of the article only talks about "the" critical Mach number. And as critical Mach number is defined, it seems to me there can only be one value for any given aircraft. Does the introduction actually mean "below the critical Mach number" and "above the critical Mach number" respectively? I'm just guessing, but that would seem to more nearly make sense. Or maybe the present wording is correct, but more explanation is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upper critical Mach number is only applicable to supersonic aircraft such as Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 and modern military combat aircraft. The upper critical Mach number would be close to 1.00, perhaps between 0.95 and 1.00. I have made an adjustment to the lead paragraph of the article. Does it clarify adequately?

The range of speeds between the lower and upper Mach numbers is the range known as transonic flight. Modern jet airliners are designed to cruise just inside the transonic range and that is why they need swept wings. However, these modern jet airliners go nowhere near the upper critical Mach number. Dolphin (t) 22:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]