Talk:Hot and high

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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: criterion not met

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hot and high. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721172646/http://www.mausam.gov.in/WEBIMD/ClimatologicalAction.do?function=getStationDetails&actionParam=1&param=2&station=Leh to http://www.mausam.gov.in/WEBIMD/ClimatologicalAction.do?function=getStationDetails&actionParam=1&param=2&station=Leh

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erasure of technically unsound material

Today I erased significant amounts of text. This text was unsourced and technically unsound.

The article had evolved to acknowledge that reduced air density causes higher True Airspeeds and to imply that higher True Airspeeds, especially the True Airspeed at the stall, constitute a reduction in performance. This is untrue.

Most aircraft do not have an airspeed indicator that indicates True Airspeed. Consequently the pilot is oblivious of the True Airspeed, especially as reducing air density has no discernible effect on aircraft handling qualities.

The deterioration of aircraft performance in hot and high conditions is due almost entirely to the reduction in thrust from the power plant. It is almost unrelated to the increase in True Airspeed relative to Indicated Airspeed. Dolphin (t) 01:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Other uses"

Continuing the theme of "technically unsound material" . . "hot and high can also describe a botched landing approach ..: .. the only way to slow the rate of descent is to increase speed .."??

This doesn't look right to me? (1) Increasing speed (on an unchanged descent slope) would increase the rate of descent (in feet per minute); and (2) what you'd be trying to do (wishing you could do!) is to descend quickly - faster, not slower - because you're too high. Basically, (3) the text seems to reverse the causation: it's not tht managing speed is your means of managing descent-rate, it's tht increasing your descent-rate will affect your airspeed (and not in the way you want, since you're already too 'hot').

Am I airing my ignorance here? - disclosing my lack of relevant expertise!? or should I have a go at reframing the article text, restating the issues?

- SquisherDa (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the material was technically unsound. There may have been some sound thinking behind it, but it was written in such an unclear fashion it was not possible to see anything meritorious. The content of the section was entirely unsourced so I have erased it. If you are inclined to start again and re-write it, correctly restating the issues and providing a reliable, published source, please go for it. Dolphin (t) 12:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help with sources? I'd be pushed to source anything properly. I think I could manage a lucid and accurate statement. It seems unfortunate to lose the section entirely - this alternate informal meaning of the phrase is reasonably common . . and potentially very confusing! - SquisherDa (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]