Talk:Northrop X-21

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Laminar Flow[edit]

Even when combined with the information in Laminar Flow, this article does not provide enough info to tell a reader what, exactly, was different about this plane than any others. My guess based on the the "plugging" information is that there was something about the wing (design or surface material?) that created gaps (tubules or layers?) that could get clogged. Perhaps the information I lack existed at some point in the edit history of Laminar Flow, but I can't find it there, either. Thanks, - Kevin/Last1in 18:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement: "In principle, if 80 percent of wing is laminar, then overall drag could be reduced by 25 percent." ...is typically correct but quite misleading. As used it refers to the improvement offered to a typical aircraft having a fuselage responsible for half the total drag, and a wing whose improvement, in going from a predominantly turbulent-flow drag condition to 80% laminar flow, offers a more than 50% reduction in the amount of wing drag. This statement is quite commonly made without this context and is easily recognizable on that basis to those familiar with the subject matter.

Comparing just the change in drag provided by an airfoil offering less than 25% laminar flow, to one offering more than 70% laminar flow, the benefit of the laminar flow airfoil is a typically 50% or greater reduction in drag, assuming operation at its design Reynolds number. Mc2design (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]