“Because he's the hero Bill's talk page deserves, but not the one it needs right now. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”
Type 91 Torpedo
You raise a good point about the wooden stabilisers. They certainly had no aerodynamic properties as they were fundamentally rough hewn bits of timber (well - somebody might have sanded them off a bit to avoid anyone getting a splinter). I'm not sure that stabilisers is the right description either. They were designed to absorb the impact of the torpedo hitting the water and remove its desire to initially head for the bottom of the harbour before recovering to its operating depth. Since they broke off on impact, absorbing the downward momentum, they didn't get the chance to stabilise anything so they would not have had any hydrodynamic properties either. I would leave the article as is and let some one phrase it more accurately in the future. 86.186.4.186 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of the punchline to the David Steinberg joke which laments his lack of appropriate knowledge. Since the wooden bits that broke off seem to be neither "aero-" nor "hydro-" dynamic stabilizers, I'd be happy leaving out the gratuitous adjective. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Aerodynamic is mostly used for low drag configurations. (Maybe in water, too.) Longitudinal static stability is what causes them to point in the right direction. As noted above, static stability will cause them to go too deep. So, you want less stability. Gah4 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody reminded me that the films Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor both depicted the wooden fins as remaining on the torpedoes while they made their run toward the American battleships. In fact: neither film was correct on the point. Anyway, it looks like that we can agree on omitting either dynamic adjective. 86.186.4.186 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)