Talk:Headwind and tailwind

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Merge edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am suggesting a single page merge for at least head and tailwind. They really have no major difference in content that they need two articles. Presumably to some article such as headwind and tailwind. TheHYPO (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like that happened, but now we have two different sections with nearly identical wording. Thundermaker (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Error edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think there is an error on this page caused from copying sentances from the headwind page. Where the article states: "A headwind increases the object's speed and reduces the time required to reach its destination." I beleive it should say tailwind instead of headwind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.235.146 (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

three components??? edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current wording makes it sound as if headwind and tailwind are separate components. They are not; they are opposite views of the same component. If headwind is X, tailwind is -X. I am going to fix this and add sourcing. Thundermaker (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Poor Grammar edit

The introduction (specifically the blurb about aeronautics) is worded strangely and flows poorly. It should be broken up into multiple sentences or, at the very least, employ a semicolon or two.

Add topic