User talk:Stahlkocher1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 13:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your welcome

Posted on User:ClockworkTroll

Dear ClockworkTroll thanks for your welcome. Im german and interested in aviation. I just do some interwiki links and trace down some errors concerning aviation, espacially german or russian aviation. -- Stahlkocher 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It's my pleasure to welcome you, Stahlkocher1. All contributions, however modest, are greatly appreciated! ClockworkTroll 17:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 307

You asked if I have a picture of the Boeing 307 at the Udvar Hazy Center. I have a few pictures, but they aren't the greatest (the Udvar Hazy center doesn't have great lighting). I'll upload one today and add it to the 307 page. -- Kaszeta 12:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. It's Image:Boeing_307_Udvar_Hazy.jpg. -- Kaszeta 12:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome!

Much appreciated. I like keeping inter-wiki links up to date, and my knowledge of German is enough to do that in most cases ... but I hope you won't mind me asking for help occasionally? —Morven 17:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] commons:Image:Rolls Royce Goblin II cutaway.jpg

Hi again Stahlkocher1.

I don't know why I forgot the SAAB J21R! - I noticed the Swedish insignia but was pretty sure it wasn't a Tunnen or a Lansen.

Glad you liked the annotated Goblin diagram. If you can translate the captions into German and let me have them, I'll see if I can do a German version of the image.

BTW, I have adjusted your SAAB J21R picture if you want to have a look - (I saw the Goblin's nozzle in the picture!)

Regards, Ian Dunster 13:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


Hallo again!
The German version of the Goblin diagram is now on Commons here: Image:DH Goblin annotated colour cutaway (German).png
Let me know if I've made any mistakes and I'll correct them!
Regards, Ian Dunster 17:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Area rule article

Your edits are interesting regarding Otto Frenzl and Area rule - but can you provide a source for the information. The patent image could easily be faked (to be clear I'm not accusing you of that) I'm just concerned that it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Could you provide some links to back up the claims (preferably to copies of the German patent office documents). I only ask because a google in his name doesn't bring anything interesting up. Megapixie 08:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See responses on my talk page. Megapixie 23:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Area rule and Whitcolm's work in general

I saw the thread on Mega's page and felt I needed to comment.

For one, the presense of the German work on the area rule is quite well known. In fact, a British duo also independantly developed it in the immediate post-war era as well. However these accounts are generally unknown, because they were unapproachable. The German efforts, in particular, were quite hand-waving on how they were supposed to work.

Whitcolm's version, on the other hand, was blindingly obvious. Let's not forget that Kucheman (IIRC, maybe Busemann) himself praised Whitcolm for producing the first clearly understandable development that designers could actually use.

To go on and suggest that Whitcolm's version was simply stolen from the German work, as you have, displays complete ignorance of the history and the technical details of how he arrived at his conclusions. This history, including the German developments and influence, it clearly outlined in NASA's own documents, which I linked to in the first versions of the article. While complaining to Mega that he shouldn't start his research on Google, I can only admonish you for doing precisely that.

But not to be stopped there you then go on to suggest that all of Whitcolm's developments were simply stolen from the Germans. Poppycock! Again, the historical record is very clear and laid out in detail in NASA's own historical documents. Developments of wingtip plates, for instance, was obvious to anyone who knew the terms "spanwise flow" and "wingtip vortex", which was basically the entire aeroengineering field. What Whitcolm did was actually put these things in a wind tunnel and test, test, test, until they figured out what actually worked as opposed to what might work. The same is true of the supercritical airfoil, which underwent the same evolution.

Here, go and read this right now: [1]. As you can see it clearly credits Adolf Busemann with putting the idea in Whitcolm's head. It also clearly demonstrates that the particular idea was very different than what had led previous experimenters to the same conclusion. Also note the article clearly points out earlier German and British work, so it's not like there's some sort of cover-up going on!

Maury 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maury, thank you for your comment, but i have to comment, too. First of all the German patent on the area rule is not well known. Whitcomb was informed by Busemann about whats going on on transsonic speed. This was described in the 1944 patent. It is not stolen, but, in my oppinion, miscredited. Whitcomb was the guy who casts ideas into hardware.
So what I found out, despite of NACA history is: The Ju 287 should be build area ruled, using engines cowling to keep cross sections constant. The Ju 287 should be equipped with a transsonic low drag profile, similar to the supercritical one later invented. All german design offices should be aware of this, as they were aware of jet engines and swept wing. On the BMW design office i found sketches of aircraft using an arearuled body similar to whitcombs approach. And then: War over. And the knowledge was lost. Most interesting is, that this fundamental patent was not mentioned in german literature till now. I´ve read several books about the junkers work, but: No area rule mentioned. Even Brunolf Baade did not use it on the EF-150 any more. The question is: Why? And be carefull with statements of US officials. Some years ago they told the world that they found bio-mass-destruction weapons in Iraq. Best regards from germany -- Stahlkocher 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this. Your only response has been to post an ever-lengthening conspiracy theory with absolutely no facts to back it up. Above you manage to confuse practically every aerodynamic term you post, leading me to believe you don't really understand any of them.
Look, we know the Germans knew of the principle. We also know the British did too. But neither of these changes the fact that Whitcolm really did develop it on his own. PERIOD. I've seen the statements from the very people that were doing the work during WWII (Kutcheman), and they personally credit Whitcolm with his version being different and very much better. And your invented claim above that Busemann told Whitcolm about the WWII work is an insult to Busemann, who developed his "pipefitting" theory all on his own as well.
That two people can come to the same conclusion using completely different logical processes should not be surprising. There are at least four completely different ways to develop quantum mechanics for instance, all of which were developed independantly. The motorjet concept was invented at least three times, by Coana, Camprini and NASA. In the case of the area rule I know of at least four people who developed the idea, or close to it, and have no reason to suspect they even knew of each other's work -- in fact two of these were in Germany at the same time yet I have yet to see anything to connect them.
And what does the Ju 287 have to do with anything. The aircraft clearly shows no sign of area rule effects -- if they really were using the rule they would have moved the front engines towards the rear (placing them at the nose is the absolutely worst place) and lengthened/widened the tail. The aircraft is a straight as an arrow. Furthermore your claim that the 287's wing was in any way similar to supercritical indicates you don't understand the topic at all, because it's obvious it doesn't have one. To say "it had low transonic drag, therefore it's like a supercritical wing" is identical to stating "a pin has low transonic drag, therefore it is like a supercritical wing".
As to the patent itself, I have seen the Messerschmidt design in books dating back well over a decade, and that was in reference to earlier work. I believe it appeared in Brian Greene's works from the 1950s.
You have yet to post a single verifiable fact to back up your suppositions. That you edited the article to insert your "theory" as if it were fact is an insult to the wikipedia.
Maury 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Ju EF 58
Ju EF 58
Hi Maury, there is no conspirary theory because there is no conspiracy at all. I`m just asking questions about knowledge flow. I do not know anything about your background, but: The guys with this motorjet were Coanda, Campini, Khalshchevnikov (build into the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 (N)) and several others. It was realy common. The Ju 287 you know, this flying prototyp, was *NOT* the intended Ju 287. The only parts used from the real Ju 287 were the wings and the engines. The fuselage was from a He 177, the tail from a Ju 188 and the undercarriage from a liberator bomber. And of course where the engines on the correct position. Please refere to the patent. The upper drawing based on the intended Ju 287. I uploaded a foto showing a wind tunnel test model from the EF58-project. I guess this is the project everything starts with. And i guess you might see the narrowing body, too. btw.: Please tell me the names of this british area rule guys. Best wishes -- Stahlkocher 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:H19 Showing Engine.jpg

Hi Rogerd, im just working on a german articel about the Wright R-1300. I suggest that the engine in the H-19 should be a R-1300. You wrote R-1340 instead. Is this truth? Did i mess up something? -- Stahlkocher 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. According to USAF Museum page about this aircraft it is an Wright R-1300-3 of 700 hp. Thanks for pointing out my error. --rogerd 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there does not seem to be an article in the english wikipedia about the R-1300. Could you translate it to english when you are done? Thanks. --rogerd 16:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car photos, license plate number removal and stuff

I am happy to hear you're OK with it :D I will be striving to edit all your pictures I will be using in the articles I edit, as I have my own pics to edit too and, as all the people here, limited amounts of time at my disposal :D Anyway, keep the pics coming! Bravada, talk - 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. You haven't come accross any more Simcas or Talbots, have you? A photo of the Tagora would come in very handy, as the article is to be featured in a few days and the current photo is rather so-so...

[edit] Image:Aircraft engine IP&W JT9D.jpg

Hi again Stahlkocher1.

I've done what I can with the picture - see what you think. Regards, Ian Dunster 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felicitas Woll

Hi yet again Stahlkocker!

When you've got a minute can you have a look at the new Felicitas Woll article on the English Wikipedia. I've just started it using [Babel Fish] for the translation from the page on the German Wikipedia [[2]] and it could do with someone who speaks German properly having a look sometime. Many thanks. Regards, Ian Dunster 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking a look. And I've found LEO - thanks! :) Ian Dunster 09:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upload of images from NMUSAF

I see you are uploading many images from the National Museum of the United States Air Force site to commons. I think this is good to replace the existing images since many of the old images have watermarks, but I have a few suggestions:

  1. Use the more specific template {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} instead of {{PD-USGov}}
  2. Include the actual url instead of "Source:USAF Museum"
  3. Consider using the commons Information template, the same way as in commons:Image:XC142A.jpg
  4. Consider adding the image to the commons gallery commons:National Museum of the United States Air Force

Thanks --rogerd 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Jürgen Barth

Oops. Who knew? Done. Herostratus 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User wanted ;-)

Hi Liftarn, we want to contact the original uploader of this image [3] for further questions. Unfortunatly there is no user page. Is the page probably deleted? Can you help somehow? -- Stahlkocher 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The user may not have made a user page. The user seems to exist, see Special:Contributions/Michael.katzmann so you could go to User talk:Michael.katzmann and leave a message, but the user doesn't seem to be very active. // Liftarn

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Avro_Canada_C-102_wiki.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avro_Canada_C-102_wiki.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)