@swerve: yes, as speed increases so does lift
@tomcatVP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt5.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt6.htm
You are confusing aerodynamics and the artistic work of a designer.
You Haack body has no wing for example. With the Stilleto mentioned above and the F84, we have a similar confusion, that a slender body will perform better.
As an example, already mentioned to you times ago, what drive the transonic drag is the body volume section and its evolution according to a sin law*. This includes the section of the fuselage, wings, tail surfaces etc… This why the F102 with its bulges on the rear performed better aerodynamically than without (and “sleeker” it was before the remodeling work). Same goes for the Buccaneer.
It is important to seat on a rational base when it comes to complex system as are aircraft. They often constitute a sum of basic problem that it is good to have some sens with before discussing it in overall. You should take the time to clear your mind of such false opinions.
*In wiki (you link), at the bottom, this is exactly what is written – I wonder if you have ever read it:
A superficially related concept is the Whitcomb area rule, which states that wave drag due to volume in transonic flow depends primarily on the distribution of total cross-sectional area, and for low wave drag this distribution must be smooth. A common misconception is that the Sears–Haack body has the ideal area distribution according to the area rule, but this is not correct. The Prandtl-Glauert equation which is the starting point in the Sears–Haack body shape derivation is not valid in transonic flow, which is where the Area rule applies.
Sign In
