This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
¿What is that? It would be helpful to say something (at very least). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.4.28 ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It's just a myth. Nobody removes it because people babysit their articles on wikipedia. 5.10.49.8 ( talk) 00:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The following was removed - it was merely a minor temporary drawback during design, which did not find it's way into production aircraft [1]
120.151.160.158 ( talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
References
I wanted to move this page to fantail because Fenestron is a registered trademark, but I don't know if fantail is also a registered trademark. -- Gbleem 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The alleged and unsubstantiated disadvantage "Higher power requirement for a given thrust" directly contradicts the ducted fan article, which states (with reference) the opposite: "In some cases, a shrouded rotor can be 94% more efficient than an open rotor". 120.151.160.158 ( talk) 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Disadvantages" section still contains some broad sweeping claims that are not fully accurate, and a number of dubious and un-referenced statements that are almost certainly not accurate.
eg:-
Does make me wonder who wrote all that, and what they were up to. Is there something commerical that competes in the market against Fenestron?
120.151.160.158 ( talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fenestron/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Born2flie: Seems a little short considering that there is an increasing number of aircraft with Fenestron™. -- 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fenestron. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fenestron.com/site/docs_wsw/RUB_10101/pa-spe2006-02-01.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Advantages" section, it says "decrease in power requirements", but in the "Disadvantages" section, it says "greater ... power requirement" !
Please would someone knowledgable sort out this contradiction ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 ( talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
"A decrease in power requirements during the cruise phase of flight.", while in the "Disadvantages" section, it says
"Increase in power required during the hover phase of flight."(Emphases added.) Those bolded phrases which you left out are the key to the apparent contradictions. The Fenestron requires more power in hover than a helicopter with a conventional tail rotor, while it requires less power while in cruise flight. BilCat ( talk) 23:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
¿What is that? It would be helpful to say something (at very least). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.4.28 ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It's just a myth. Nobody removes it because people babysit their articles on wikipedia. 5.10.49.8 ( talk) 00:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The following was removed - it was merely a minor temporary drawback during design, which did not find it's way into production aircraft [1]
120.151.160.158 ( talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
References
I wanted to move this page to fantail because Fenestron is a registered trademark, but I don't know if fantail is also a registered trademark. -- Gbleem 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The alleged and unsubstantiated disadvantage "Higher power requirement for a given thrust" directly contradicts the ducted fan article, which states (with reference) the opposite: "In some cases, a shrouded rotor can be 94% more efficient than an open rotor". 120.151.160.158 ( talk) 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Disadvantages" section still contains some broad sweeping claims that are not fully accurate, and a number of dubious and un-referenced statements that are almost certainly not accurate.
eg:-
Does make me wonder who wrote all that, and what they were up to. Is there something commerical that competes in the market against Fenestron?
120.151.160.158 ( talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fenestron/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Born2flie: Seems a little short considering that there is an increasing number of aircraft with Fenestron™. -- 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fenestron. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fenestron.com/site/docs_wsw/RUB_10101/pa-spe2006-02-01.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Advantages" section, it says "decrease in power requirements", but in the "Disadvantages" section, it says "greater ... power requirement" !
Please would someone knowledgable sort out this contradiction ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 ( talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
"A decrease in power requirements during the cruise phase of flight.", while in the "Disadvantages" section, it says
"Increase in power required during the hover phase of flight."(Emphases added.) Those bolded phrases which you left out are the key to the apparent contradictions. The Fenestron requires more power in hover than a helicopter with a conventional tail rotor, while it requires less power while in cruise flight. BilCat ( talk) 23:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)