Talk:DFS 193
Add topicLatest comment: 15 years ago by Brambleclawx in topic Flown or not?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DFS 193 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Flown or not?
[edit]Did this fly? "planned" suggests it did not; wind tunnel tests might have been on a model or on a full sized aircraft. I think it is important to distinguish clearly between proposals and flyers.TSRL (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've read in the ref I have (the one by Lippisch himself), he indicates that they built a mock-up and wind tunnelled it, found it to have no improvement, and abandoned it. So, I assume it didn't fly. Brambleclawx 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- A comment along the lines of "There is no evidence that this design progressed beyond the wind tunnel model stage." would clarify things. Perhaps the lead should say "unbuilt design study" rather than "planned". Does he say, BTW, if this was a full scale mock-up?TSRL (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- To quote directly: "This version, the DFS 193 (Fig. 48), was to be built at the Siebel Aircraft Company in Halle-Saale. We built a mock-up of this design, but since the wind tunnel measurements did not show any improvement compared to traditional aircraft types, the project was abandoned in 1938 [48]." Brambleclawx 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- A comment along the lines of "There is no evidence that this design progressed beyond the wind tunnel model stage." would clarify things. Perhaps the lead should say "unbuilt design study" rather than "planned". Does he say, BTW, if this was a full scale mock-up?TSRL (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)