This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I split the article from the nose cone article because it really focuses on the math involved during nose cone design. Lots of articles use seperate sections for this kind of thing. Ruleke 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This page appears to be largely a direct copy of the following article, copyrighted in 1996: http://projetosulfos.if.sc.usp.br/artigos/NoseCone_EQN2.PDF - which is even listed in the references. Is there permission to use this? If not, I will consider marking as a copyright violation. -- Knotnic 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
, I can get an email from him, not sure where to post it or what the procedure is. -- Ruleke 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is interesting but its not easy to discern which designs work best in what situations. Perhaps it needs a table at the bottom comparing the various designs and their characteristics.-- Hooperbloob 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"A very common nose cone shape is a simple cone. This shape is often chosen for its ease of manufacture, and is also often (mis)chosen for its drag characteristics." Why is a cone mischosen? Does it have more drag than one would normally assume? Banaticus 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize this is about 'nose cones,' but with regard to kinetic weapons like bullets, and penetrating weapons like certain bombs, the shape of the nose may be chosen for penetation and shaping of the impact, the impact's explosion, etc. as well as aeordynamics. Not sure if that is pertinent, which I why I like writing in the 'discussion' first. Paulc206 08:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just referred to in the table of preferred shapes. -- Egil ( talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
reference link not working.
The last formula states that the ogive radius is greater than 2L, but the associated graphic show that L is greater than the ogive radius. In fact, L can approach 2 time the ogive radius, so the formula may have it reversed, in that L must be less than the 2 times the ogive raidus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.100.186 ( talk) 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It can be proven mathematically by differentiating y and substituting in x=l. Does this really need a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.205.134 ( talk) 22:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The Sears Haack body is a different shape altogether. The statement in the article is mathematically verifiable. Maxwelljets ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The first reference mentioned doesn't go to a pdf file as it claims - it opens a website. Could you kindly update this? Yetanotherwriter ( talk) 21:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"The power series includes the shape commonly referred to as a "parabolic" nose cone, but the shape correctly known as a parabolic nose cone is a member of the parabolic series (described above)." This statement is very awkward. Can it be reworded? Also, the "power series" shape isn't particularly blunt, either. The tangent vector at the vertex doesn't look perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Rather, it seems to come to a point like an ogive. SharkD Talk 03:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
the performance chart is poorly referenced and doesn't even say what bluntness, vertex angles, and fineness ratios performed poorly, or what the test conditions were, except for mach number. so calling either cones or ogive's inferior is not proved. as a quick calculation, take the vertex half-angle, theta, at the tangency point: then 1/(tan theta) becomes the mach number at which air striking the area forward of the tangency point is forced to compress, but if striking the area aft it is allowed to blast outward at the speed of sound. all noses with the same bluntness and vertex half-angle at this point should perform similarly at this mach number. Waveguy ( talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I split the article from the nose cone article because it really focuses on the math involved during nose cone design. Lots of articles use seperate sections for this kind of thing. Ruleke 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This page appears to be largely a direct copy of the following article, copyrighted in 1996: http://projetosulfos.if.sc.usp.br/artigos/NoseCone_EQN2.PDF - which is even listed in the references. Is there permission to use this? If not, I will consider marking as a copyright violation. -- Knotnic 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
, I can get an email from him, not sure where to post it or what the procedure is. -- Ruleke 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is interesting but its not easy to discern which designs work best in what situations. Perhaps it needs a table at the bottom comparing the various designs and their characteristics.-- Hooperbloob 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"A very common nose cone shape is a simple cone. This shape is often chosen for its ease of manufacture, and is also often (mis)chosen for its drag characteristics." Why is a cone mischosen? Does it have more drag than one would normally assume? Banaticus 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize this is about 'nose cones,' but with regard to kinetic weapons like bullets, and penetrating weapons like certain bombs, the shape of the nose may be chosen for penetation and shaping of the impact, the impact's explosion, etc. as well as aeordynamics. Not sure if that is pertinent, which I why I like writing in the 'discussion' first. Paulc206 08:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just referred to in the table of preferred shapes. -- Egil ( talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
reference link not working.
The last formula states that the ogive radius is greater than 2L, but the associated graphic show that L is greater than the ogive radius. In fact, L can approach 2 time the ogive radius, so the formula may have it reversed, in that L must be less than the 2 times the ogive raidus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.100.186 ( talk) 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It can be proven mathematically by differentiating y and substituting in x=l. Does this really need a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.205.134 ( talk) 22:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The Sears Haack body is a different shape altogether. The statement in the article is mathematically verifiable. Maxwelljets ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The first reference mentioned doesn't go to a pdf file as it claims - it opens a website. Could you kindly update this? Yetanotherwriter ( talk) 21:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"The power series includes the shape commonly referred to as a "parabolic" nose cone, but the shape correctly known as a parabolic nose cone is a member of the parabolic series (described above)." This statement is very awkward. Can it be reworded? Also, the "power series" shape isn't particularly blunt, either. The tangent vector at the vertex doesn't look perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Rather, it seems to come to a point like an ogive. SharkD Talk 03:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
the performance chart is poorly referenced and doesn't even say what bluntness, vertex angles, and fineness ratios performed poorly, or what the test conditions were, except for mach number. so calling either cones or ogive's inferior is not proved. as a quick calculation, take the vertex half-angle, theta, at the tangency point: then 1/(tan theta) becomes the mach number at which air striking the area forward of the tangency point is forced to compress, but if striking the area aft it is allowed to blast outward at the speed of sound. all noses with the same bluntness and vertex half-angle at this point should perform similarly at this mach number. Waveguy ( talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)