Talk:Laurence Clancy

Textbook review

Clancy's notability relies on his textbook Aerodynamics which suffered a devastating review by A.D. Young in the Journal of Fluid Dynamics. At first reading the review leaves the impression of a failed effort. Achieving this much recognition from JFD only augments the notability, but the first impression of the review deserves rebuttal. Accordingly, a list of his 11 issues with the textbook has been made so that Young's review may be put in the balance. For instance, what special knowledge does Young have on the design of slotted flaps? The criticisms appear scattered and perhaps insignificant.

• Definition of pressure:
• Bernoulli theorem without thermal contributions
• Wing wake development: cusp trailing edge ?
• Turbulence marginal ?
• Downwash or not in 2D ?
• Design of slotted flaps
• High-speed subsonic dubious statements ch 11
• Static margins of tail lift, absence of roll page 543
• No exercises or references
• Crude illustrations
• Fails as textbook

If you have experience with the textbook, what can you add? — Rgdboer (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read Alec Young's review in JFD but I am greatly surprised by the above comments. My view is that Aerodynamics is a wonderful textbook! I have extracted more value from Clancy's book than from any other textbook on the subject.

Not having read Young's review I can't see what criteria he used to draw his conclusions. His criteria may be very different from Clancy's objectives. Pitman describes the objectives as:

This book fills the need for a comprehensive and up-to-date text for first degree students studying aeronautical or mechanical engineering. It is also suitable for student pilots, technicians and those studying the subject below degree level.

Perhaps Young was looking for a textbook for advanced undergraduate students and post-graduate students. Most of Young's criticisms listed above are not relevant to a textbook intended to be used by "student pilots, technicians and those studying the subject below degree level."

I particularly challenge the notion that the illustrations are crude. I find the illustrations entirely adequate. Dolphin (t) 02:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I too have not seen the critical review but am nevertheless surprised by the number of criticisms which are not relevant to Clancy's introductory level of explanation. I would also comment:

Clancy's distinction of static, dynamic and total pressures is fundamental. Which of these definitions does Young find fault with and why?

Clancy's treatment of slotted flaps is very basic and intuitive but sound. What is Young's criticism?

Yes, one or two statements about high-subsonic airflow might have been more precisely phrased, but at this elementary level the language one uses is sufficiently imprecisely defined for such sins to be allowable. Young appears to be just nit-picking with no regard to the relevant context.

Maybe there is a difference between editions, but in my 1975 edition Clancy specifically discusses "The effects on rolling moment..." on page 543. Is Young claiming that he shouldn't be?

The lack of exercises or references is indeed an exception to "the majority of books in the series" but that is no criticism of the main text.

The illustrations may be a tad crude in places, but they do their job well. This is not an arthouse glossy for the coffee table!

I disagree that it fails as a textbook. But even if it did, it certainly does not fail as a reliable source for Wikipedians.

Finally, its notability depends as much on how widely it has been read and cited elsewhere as on its inner qualities, and in that there can be no doubt that it has influenced a huge number of aero engineers around the world. We should be citing it and, if it has been shown to be genuinely wrong anywhere significant, then we should be citing those criticisms too and expounding the modern view. The question for me is, do Young's criticisms measure up? Was he sufficiently specific? Was he sufficiently influential? It is he who should be under the spotlight, not Clancy.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that Alec David Young was a respected aeronautical academic and has his own biopic on Wikipedia. We really do need to know more about the specifics of his criticisms before we can judge what is worth commenting on. I certainly don't think that dickering over what makes a good textbook is notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A critique of the critic

The first page of Young's review is online here.

On pressure, Clancy makes it clear at the start that he distinguishes static, dynamic and total pressures and that he uses "pressure" unqualified to mean static pressure. His development of Bernoulli's theorem involves only p, which indicates static pressure. He does not depict pressure distributions across aerofoils (p.57 ff) until long after his introductory discussion of static, dynamic and total pressures. And when he does, the pressures in the diagrams conform to his stated use of "pressure" alone to indicate the static pressure as he defines it. Young's criticisms are incompatible with these observations: he quotes Clancy incompletely, then criticises him for doing what he said he would do - in both the quoted and unquoted parts.

On the wake and the boundary layer, Clancy discusses the wake (pp.41-2) before stating that the boundary layer "merges with the wake" (p.43). Young misreads this as stating that the boundary layer "becomes" the wake, thus wrangling an error which Clancy did not make.

All I see in these first couple of technical criticisms is imagined faults brought on by the reviewer's careless reading. I had planned to dig out a copy of the full review to look over but, given its unconvincing start, I see no value in doing so now.

Before I, or Wikipedia, could take any of Young's criticisms seriously, it would need to be supported by other, independent reliable sources. Until any turn up, we may assume that none such exists.

With regard to the OP's opening comments it is clear that, for whatever reason, Young failed to treat the book fairly. The failure was not Clancy's. Young's review stands as evidence of Clancy's notability but not, alas, of his own.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability?

Given that Clancy's notability rests primarily on his book on Aerodynamics, I am not convinced that this article passes WP:N as it stands. I think it should either be deleted or rewritten around the book rather than the man and moved to Aerodynamics (Clancy book) per WP:BOOKDAB. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)