Talk:Area rule

message: If there is a finer example of how collabrative editing can turn a somewhat geeky article into one of the best on the topic I've seen, I can't think of it. The images added have really improved the content a lot.
Maury 14:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, the 747 is a textbook example of the area rule. The aircraft was originally designed as a strategic transport competing against what became the C-5 Galaxy. Both aircraft were sized specifically to contain a 2-by-2 stack of standard shipping containers. In the case of an accident, these would come out the front of the aircraft and nothing would stop them, so in order to protect the pilots the cockpit was located above the cargo area. Lockheed chose to enclose the entire area as a second deck, leading to it's egg-shaped cross-section, while Boeing instead used the "pod". While developing the -400, testing demonstrated that extending the pod rearward would reduce drag due to the area rule. Maury (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh ... this is a horribly written text.  "The area rule says that two airplanes with the same longitudinal cross-sectional area distribution have the same wave drag, independent of how the area is distributed laterally" ...  I don't care who's textbook that's in - it's dumb and it's poorly written.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I've asked User:Stahlkocher1 (on his talk page) to provide some sources for his recent edits, as I can't find anything about Otto Frenzl on google. Does anyone else know anything about this man ? Megapixie 08:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See ongoing discussion on my talk page Megapixie 23:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otto Frenzl 

message: I thing Küchemann in overestimated in the area-rule matter. The german war scientist had good connections, and so they werewell informed about real news. Küchemann and most other did now about the Junkers patent. There were severall designs working with the areal rule, even at BMW design office (sic!). So everybody knows whats going on. Most of them are late 1944 shure that there will be no Endsieg. But research was still going on. However: If Whitcomb really meet Busemann, it is most likely that Busemann plain told him about the area rule. And probably some other things. -- Stahlkocher 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dietrich Küchemann moved to the RAE Farnborough at the end of WW II and worked with Handley Page and was subsequently involved on the Concorde supersonic airliner project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietrich Küchemann 

message: I found someone with approach to the inner sight of german 1945 aircraft industrie. I thought (no document found yet) that, beside Junkers, just Messerschmidt, Arado and Heinkel (probably one or two more) had knowledge about the Frenzl patent. This means that it was not spread to much. Furthermore he suggested that the afford to get a area ruled airframe was to large if you stay subsonic. This is probably the reason while Baade did not use it in russia on his developments. The next thing is that the HP Victor most likely has an area ruled airframe, making this aircraft probably the first flying thing with this awareness. Maury told my about british researches working on area ruled bodies, but did not name them till now. I hope he will tell me soon. -- Stahlkocher 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research went on 

message: Shouldn't this be Whitcomb area rule? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Whitcomb rediscover only the Fenzel area rule.--HDP (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I have just removed the unscientific "due to Bernoulli" statement. I suspect this is a version of the transit time fallacy popularized by incorrect explanations of airfoil lift. Acceleration of a fluid is not "due to Bernoulli." Applying Bernuolli's law to a supersonic flow situation is naïve. Such assertions should not be made without supporting references.
Don't put this nonsense back in without some justification.
Johnny (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, but when you use all those "3 dollar words" - no one is going to believe you.  Speak English next time, and maybe you'll convince someone that you understand the subject matter.  "Transit time fallacy"?  Do you speak like that at work?  No.  Not even if you work at Boeing or Lockmart.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernoulli? 

message: Isn't the transonic operating range only an important operating range for SOME fixed wing aircraft? Namely high speed types such as jets? The introduction makes it sound as if it was important for all fixed wing aircraft, and I doubt it is a big consideration in Cessnas and such..45Colt 08:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed wing aircraft 

message: Such "theoretical" shapes have been found by limited experiment to actually fly. Note that there are total fuselage "holes". A thorough understanding of this subject would incorporate such "anomalies".  
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9cddcb52914d.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.177 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange thoughts on Area Rule 

message: "If there is a finer example of how collabrative editing can turn a somewhat geeky article into one of the best on the topic I've seen..." Maury 14:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get a room...