EMW A6 Comparison to X-15

In article
,
"Vaughn" wrote:

"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...

The EMW A6 does bear a strong
resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration...

In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other airplanes.

What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is
beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the wings
and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was under
the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I wrong?

It came out of research at Langley done by Richard Whitcomb and others
from 1949-51. He was awarded the Collier Trophy for the work in 1954.

Work there on transonic airflow and drag began around 1943, but
Whitcomb's contribution was critical, and began in 1948.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:27:14 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:


It came out of research at Langley done by Richard Whitcomb and others
from 1949-51. He was awarded the Collier Trophy for the work in 1954.

Work there on transonic airflow and drag began around 1943, but
Whitcomb's contribution was critical, and began in 1948.

Hardly known, but in fact the area rule is a Messerschmitt patent from
1944. The Messerschmitt engineers Hertel, Frenzel and Hempel received
the German patent no. 932410 in 1944.

Look at Messerschmitt projects P1110 and P1112 - they already show the
area rule (they both had a clearly visible coke-bottle shape of the
fuselage). The 262 design was not considered to be worth further
development because it did not permit a clean re-design according to
the area rule and therefore no transsonic speeds (which 1110 and later
fighter designs were designed for).



Bye
Andreas