Talk:Zero-lift drag coefficient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Fluid Dynamics  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

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. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed the continued used of the deeply irrational imperial units is appalling. but maybe it should just be deleted since this exists: Dan Frederiksen (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Drag Calcs Specific to Props[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.[edit]

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. (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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zero-lift drag coefficient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)