This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It is rather disturbing to read that the formulas that are supposed to keep planes safely in the air refer to certain parts of the human anatomy (feet), the stamina of certain mammals (horsepower) and certain species of snail (slugs). Would the author of this article therefore please resort to the use of the metric (SI) system.
Takes as long to complain as it does to fix things. I don't feel like doing the conversions. If it bothers you, be my guest. - Emt147Burninate! 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Only propeller driven aircraft can use this equation. It's based on circular logic anyway. I'm volunteering to write this section up to snuff, but I've heard that the wiki gods are being cliquish. Not elitist, cliquish. Anyway, I am an aerospace engineer and find that many of the articles on aerodynamics are very, very poorly written in terms of their usefulness as a reference for aircraft design. I can't even look up basic topics. So instead of using a web source that's fast, I end up using a textbook that's slow. This is in stark contrast to wiki's usefulness as a reference for other technical topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knappador (talk • contribs) 01:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Knappador! Feel free to do as much editing and improving as you like. That is what Wikipedia is all about. However, be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for aircraft design, or a textbook, or a guidance manual. Have a quick look at WP:NOT. There is a lot of guidance available about how to write good material and provide suitable references and in-line citations. I will put links on your personal User Talk page to lead you to some of the guidance material. As for the Wiki gods being cliquish - I haven't seen any evidence of it. Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Half confused, half looking to be a wise-ass.
In the 3rd paragraph down, parasitic drag is basically - and I'm paraphrasing heavily here - described as a the equivalent of a flat square disk. I had no idea that such a creature existed. I'm keen to know what the silhouette of a square disk would look like. My confusion stems from being taught that a disc, or the general shape of a disc, the basic disc shape... is circular, or you might also say it is 2 dimensionally spherical. Confusion also comes from being taught that a square, or the general shape of the square, your basic square shape is... well, very much square, but an argument could be made that it more closely resembles a 2 dimensional cube. There's an alarm going off in my brain somewhere telling me that these are mutually exclusive geometric conditions. Why does this feel like Schrodinger's OTHER box.... you know, the one that's only a cube when you look at it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the paragraph is that it confuses drag at zero lift and drag coefficient at zero lift. For example, the first sentence includes "The zero-lift drag coefficient ... is simply the product of zero-lift drag coefficient and aircraft's wing area" which is mathematically impossible. I will erase the word "coefficient" from the first sentence and that will improve things a little. However, the article is about the drag coefficient, not the drag force, so we aren't there yet. Dolphin(t) 12:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)