Talk:Aerodynamic drag

lacking less abstract account

This article, as of May 08, is entirely abstract and mathematical. It should also have an account in plain language which corresponds wot hte mathematics so that Average Readers, who lack the mathematical and physics expertise, can follow the argument as well. In addition, there are no pointers to articles dealing with practical effects of the drag issue, such as streamlininig (real or supposed) in train locomotives or tractor trailers or automobiles.

Alternatively, as section on this practical issues would be well. as it would address many of the same problems with this article. ww (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Slowly Improving This Article

I am, at present, working on improving this article. It is, in some sense, being used as my personal introduction to properly editing wikipedia entries. Please feel free to add comments on style/content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison.Caudill (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure it helps to separate the drag into skin friction and shape drag, as the two are closely related. For vehicles, I don't think there is actually significant tangential force, and I don't remember that being included in discussions of this type. Compressability drag is special in its dependence on mach number. Induced drag is special for an airplane, but must fit into the same framework as shape drag to include land vehicles. The equations could be put in their own section, as suggested, but I am not sure they are needed. They are not formulas that anyone can do anything with by them selves. David R. Ingham (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

On further consideration, the main thing that one can use to help reduce drag or to quickly evaluate the streamlining of a shape is boundary layer separation, and the Kamm principle. At the speeds and scales of ground vehicles and airplanes, a shape has much less drag if the main flow of air follows the surface, which happens if the form does not fall away too rapidly as it is followed from front to back. Therefore good streamline forms are rounded in front and gently tapered in the back. The Kamm principle is that if it is not practical to taper the whole back, the next best is to continue a gentile taper as far as possible. Beyond the point where the gentle taper is lost, the shape is unimportant. A flat back is about as good as a steeply sloped point. David R. Ingham (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Make this a stub article; Delete most of it

In a standard book on the subject: Fluid-dynamic drag by Hoerner (1965), there are hundreds of formulas. This article has only one formula expressed by equating two integrals. At first glance, it looks as if there are two formulas but the first integral equation presented (...=0) is the same as the second equation which simply splits up the first integral into two integrals. But the worst part is that under the integral sign are three scalar variables and 4 vector variables, none of which are defined. Perhaps one could find out what they stand for by consulting the references which are shown as "sGF" and "ta2". What does this mean? I'm beginning to wonder if this article is in part vandalism?? What could be done is to make it into a stub article and start over, but I've no time to write such an article and furthermore,I don't know the subject that well (except for railroad train drag). David S. Lawyer 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's target audience?

Who is Wikipedia targeting as an audience? The curious layman who would like to understand more about the dynamics of flying golf balls and the shape of water drops, or theoretical physicists looking for a mathematical proof? The article is geared towards the latter, and I am very glad that my aerodynamics professors did not follow a similar structure when starting to explain aerodynamics to myself and my fellow 18-year old students. If I had to boil down all of the aerodynamics curriculum to a single A4 page targeted at the public at large, it would look very different to what is in the article - so different in fact that I am wondering why the article is still in it's present format. I mean, if it has been like this since 2008, am I missing the point and should it be as present with addition of some minor edits?Koyovis (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

All encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are aimed at the broadest audience possible. This article is not exclusively for physicists because they already have access to very high quality sources of information on the subject. The beginning of any article should be meaningful to laymen, young people and newcomers to the field. Further down the article it will provide more complex and detailed information.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is better than it was a year ago, and it will be better still a year from now. Are you interested in getting involved and using your reliable published sources to help refine articles of interest to you? If so, you are most welcome. Why not start today, right here on this Talk page by proposing the sort of broad changes you think will make an improvement? Dolphin (t) 00:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)