Talk:Inlet cone

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: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Confusing Text

In the section "Alternative Shapes", paragraph two, second sentence, it reads

"but have problems with seals at high speed that is high pressure and temperature (like in a diesel engine)."

Please would someone who understands the subject rewrite this ? Darkman101 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to article

I'll just give my guess on the above prior to making some changes to the article. I think that the author is saying because the intake is a compressor it has to contain air at high temperature and pressure using seals where parts move relative to one another,eg ramps. Diesel piston rings also have to seal high temperatures and pressures? I propose taking out the wording as I don't believe it adds value.

I'm working on making some changes to the article for a number of reasons. There are some odd statements like "it sucks air", "bursting open from dynamic air overpressure"' "turboramjets of the SR-71".

The J. Scott reference is wrong to a disturbing degree.

I support the original author of this article as it took time and dedication to write it. I've only done the easy bit so far, to pick fault. Pieter1963 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t have enough knowledge to rewrite this - but it is very unclear. I suspect that it might be one of those items where the reader really should undertsand a number of concepts quite well before reading it. It might even be better to see it/understand it as a video? Top marks to writer for having a go though ~~Alice-Edmund~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice-edmund (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes for various reasons, eg statements that were incorrect/not relevant to the subject/difficult to understand. I think there is still more to do eg all the Typhoon stuff in 'Alternative shapes' would be better in Intake Ramps. Let me know if you disagree with what I have done or have any other suggestions.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SR-71 inlet spike moved back at high speeds

Section on 'shape' seems to suggest the spike will need to move forward at higher speeds, but actually for the SR-71 the spike moved back above mach 1.5. - Could say what other aircraft (SU-20, TSR-2, ...) had movable inlet spikes. - Rod57 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History ?

Which aircraft had the first inlet cone ? and the first movable centrebody ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]