 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Comments edit
In the text :
"The wings were angled downwards at about 20 degrees, which, since they were lifting downwards, acted as a dihedral." This negative angle cannot be compared with the dihedral wing of an aircraft (designed for roll/yaw stability).
"Note that the wing is upside down with relation to the boat." Not the wing, but the keel is upside down.
"The windward winglet is closer to horizontal and hence produces a force directly downward, which gives a small benefit to the vessel's stability." It seems that the windward winglet, because ot the tip flow passing under the keel towards the lower pressure side, receives a slighty upgoing flow. Some 3D calculations (and comments by the architect) give a quite zero lift force. plxdesi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The text of this page is largely a copy from this page: http://www.thenewinventors.com.au/index.php/famous-australian-inventions/36-the-winged-keel 202.7.182.10 (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that. Most of the WP article's words, including the ones identical to those on the webpage you cite, were inserted on WP in 2005-2006. It is therefore possible that the webpage you cite is in fact copied from here. Have you a reason to believe that the cited webpage is older than the WP entry? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)