Talk:Area rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
This article is very well-written, but renaming it "Whitcomb area rule" was asinine. It makes the page harder to find and to link to. ArgentLA 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree about the images in general, but there are rather a lot - the 747 especially is a dubious inclusion in my view, since AFAIK, the top deck design has little to do with area rule, and more to do with other aspects of the practical design. If this were not the case, then every airliner would have a similar shape, whether or not the bulge was actually useful for passenger accommodation. And the A380 as an even newer two-deck design doesn't employ area rule in this manner. I think the 747 should go. Other photographs should be removed if they only duplicate the same point already made - the B-1 is superfluous in my view. Too many images on a page make it slow to dlownload on dial-up, and tend to distract from teh text. Illustrations and photographs should only be added to enhance an article, not take it over. Graham 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
converted thumb to text. --Arnero 10:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Otto Frenzl
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)
[edit] Dietrich Küchemann
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)
[edit] Research went on
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)
[edit] Article name
Shouldn't this be Whitcomb area rule? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Whitcomb rediscover only the Fenzel area rule.--HDP (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)