Miscellaneous desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 10

Hawkeye & Greyhound tails

What advantage would the odd tail configuration on both the E-2 Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound have? Presumably, it has something to do with take-off/landing on an aircraft carrier, but I can't think of any advantage. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on the Greyhound, to which you linked, "The C-2 has four vertical stabilizers, of which three are fitted with rudders. A single vertical stabilizer large enough for adequate directional control would have made the aircraft too tall to fit on an aircraft carrier hangar deck. The four-stabilizer configuration has the advantage of placing the outboard rudder surfaces directly in line with the propeller wash, providing effective yaw control down to low airspeeds, such as during takeoff and landing. The inner-left stabilizer lacks a rudder, and has been called the "executive tail", as it has nothing to do compared to the other three." DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "stabilizer" for a reason. As with almost any stabilizer/rudder design, only a portion is used as a rudder. The fixed portion keeps the aircraft from yawing. My guess is those two aircraft split the stabilizer function like that to reduce the height in order to fit the plane on the hangar deck. -Arch dude (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming an Island

location https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Lake+Gnangara/@-31.7871338,115.8645465,1287m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x2a32b263cc1afe1f:0xd9071584fd8a9462!8m2!3d-31.7878568!4d115.8684422

Ok here is where the problem starts I have contacted the local government to find out if this Island in the middle of the lake was named due to my son asking me the same question? Ok now here is the problem its not on any maps that i can find it has not been named so I have tried to claim the right to name the island as Coruscant Island after the starwars planet and now after there pushing my letter from one Minsters office to another I have decide that i will declare it as a territory and make a micro nation would i be with in my rights to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.53.132 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to do that would eventually reveal the actual owners, but I think the Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority might contest your right to an island in their conservation area. Dbfirs 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WA has a "Torrens system" of land registration (first introduced next door in South Australia). You could ask to see the relevant Index Map which may lead you to the relevant title certificate. All land in WA which is not owned by some person or organisation is, I believe, owned by the Crown. You could follow the lead set by Leonard Casley in 1970 but be warned - you are a lot closer to the seat of government. The government of Western Australia is fiercely protective of its territory - it has checkpoints on its borders with NT and SA. Oh - I see you work for the state government. 86.131.233.241 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Stakes

How do the weight carried and times compare for Secretariat and the Justify in the Belmont Stakes? That is to say, how many lengths would the four odd second advantage of Secretariat imply? How far back in the 1973 pack would Justify’s 2018 time place him? Edison (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't air density and heat index also factors? And wind assistance? I wonder how much of those would be needed to make the race 0.2 seconds easier. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four seconds is greater than 0.2 seconds. Edison (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horse timing was traditionally in fifths cause that's roughly how accurate the times were till the advent of fully automatic timing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secretariat won by 31 lengths, which sounds like a lot, but the second place horse only finished about 4 seconds behind him, as you noted, which works out to about 8 lengths per second. If you couldmagically plunk American Pharoah and Justify into that race and they could finish with the same times they actually did, Justify would be at the head of the pack and American Pharoah would be about halfway between Secretariat and the pack, i.e. about 15 or 16 lengths behind Big Red. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs! If Man o War could be added to Secretariat’s running of the Belmont, and at the same speed he ran his (different length) race, where would he have come in?Edison (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's risky to try to predict what a horse might have done at a longer distance. As you indicated, Man o' War's Belmont was a shorter length, 1 3/8 miles, which he won by 20 lengths and covered in 2:14 1/5. So if I'm figuring it right, Man o' War ran 11 furlongs in 134.2 seconds, and Secretariat ran 12 furlongs in 2:24 flat, or 144 seconds, a furlong being 1/8 mile. That would be 12.2 seconds per furlong for Man o' War and 12 seconds per furlong for Secretariat. Maintaining his same pace, if possible, that would put Man o' War at 146.4 seconds for 12 furlongs, or 2.4 seconds behind Secretariat, which would put him about where American Pharoah finished. It's noteworthy that Secretariat, as Chic Anderson put it, was "blazing along" - he ran each quarter mile faster than the previous one in that race. I don't know if Man o' War was similarly accelerating. If he was, that could cut the difference. Gallant Man had set the previous record at 2:26 3/5, in the 1957 Belmont. In this magical scenario, Man o' War would have just nosed out Gallant Man and American Pharoah, whose winning time was 2:26.65, and would have finished several lengths behind Big Red. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but here's an interesting tidbit in the references in 1920 Belmont Stakes: both Man o'War and Donnacona (first and second) were so far ahead of their trailers that they apparently eased up in the final sixteenth. This suggests that in a flat-out 1 1/2 mile match race, Man o' War and Secretariat could have been very close at the end, assuming Man o' War still had anything in the tank at that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes total sense when the horse is far ahead to ease up. By this token the Secretariat jock should have eased up to prevent strain or accident, but I don’t recall the jockey’s actions in the home stretch as Secretariat accelerated while far ahead. Professional judgement should lead the jockey away from pulling up the horse to the extent of actually losing, but he could have signaled the horse not to over exert. The amazing margin of victory doubtless boosted stud fees, but sometimes horses come to ’a tragic end when going all out. Edison (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember the Ruffian tragedy. That's a problem that can happen in a match race. In the case of Big Red, jockey Turcotte sensed that the horse wanted to run, and he let him. But just imagine the huge outcry if the horse had stumbled in the stretch and broken a leg (as well as losing the race). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]