Talk:Coordinated flight

Difference between slip and skid (clarification of jargon)
Hi guys! (Ahunt and Dolphin51)

I see you did not like my attempt at clarification of the difference between a slip and a skid. I saw that the article had been ignored for about six months and there had never been any discussion about it. It looked abandoned. I guess not! :-)

So, what is the difference between a slip and a skid anyway, huh? The article bandies the terms about as is they were not jargon. Well, they are jargon. I think you better darned well explain it or I'll delete your use of incomprehensible jargon. Okay, not really. Instead, I challenge you to improve my writing. Sure, it could use some citations, they will come in due time. In the mean time, buck up and pay attention to the words they are correct by golly. I'm an expert and I know what I'm talking about, but sometimes late at night I might not write as well and smooth and colloquial as I could otherwise. So, here are the words (below). Fix 'em up! :-)

If no one bothers after some time to fix up these words, or to write their own better words. I will fix them a little and paste them back, citations or not (citations will come later and correctness trumps so-called "verifiability"). Be sure to explain the current skid/slip jargon and also the difference between a "slip" in this context and a more general "sideslip".

Gummer85 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Difference between "slip" and "skid"
The words "slip" and "skid" are both the same in that they both indicate the aircraft is in a sideslip. The difference is that both "slip" and "skid" also indicate the direction of the sideslip as compared to the direction of the intended turn.

When the direction of the sideslip is such that the nose points more into the direction of the intended turn, it is called a "skid". It is called a skid because it appears as though the rear of the aircraft is "skidding around the turn" just as a rear wheels of a rear-wheel-drive car might skid around a turn.

When the direction of the sideslip is such that the nose points less in the direction of the intended turn (slightly away from the turn), it is called a "slip". Both "slip" and "skid" are sideslip, the particular term applicable depends on the direction of the turn and the direction of the sideslip.

When the pilot deliberately puts the aircraft into a (nose left or right) sideslip without making a turn, it is called a "forward slip" or simply a "slip".


 * This description is still incomprehensible to me and I am a high time pilot. I don't even see why this is needed in this article - the article is more complete without it. This probably belongs more in Sideslip angle. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... neat idea. Maybe a reference to it.  I have a little trouble with that Sideslip article (as opposed to Sideslip angle)**.  It's a little muddled and redundant so I tend to not like to refer to it.  It seems easier to make a few sentences clarifying "slip" and "skid" right in situ (and easier for the reader also).  Of course that requires some words that are maybe a little less wordy than mine.      I admire the clarity and brevity and correctness of the article in general.  If we can get the same guy to write a short "slip and skid", well that would be good!
 * Gummer85 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * **(I see the Sideslip article as a pilot's operational POV and the Sideslip angle as an engineer's cut and dried definition POV.)


 * That is probably an accurate assessment of those articles. Well why not give it a try, while attempting to maintain "clarity, brevity and conciseness" (military writing term)? - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha. Ha. I'm a former USAF officer myself.  They taught me how to write right, and I do embrace it!  It does take more work to write less than to write more!  I gotta head out the door right now and out of town so I can't do anything for at least a week.  See ya... Gummer85 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured - "clarity, brevity and conciseness" is Canadian Forces-speak. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, what's with the "Axes of rotation" section?
So, what is with this section? It's also uncited. What is it's purpose? It's possible "useful background", but that's a stretch I think. It is a nice simple clear explanation, but of something else perhaps.

Gummer85 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that is is just a poorly thought out duplication of Aircraft principal axes and should be cut, with a single sentence linking to that article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey! that was fast!
 * You know, I actually admire how well worded this article is. It's simple and correct and short.
 * Gummer85 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well not all subjects on Wikipedia require long articles to adequetely explain them. This one still has room for improvement, probably resulting in it getting shorter. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you are going to be away for a while I did some work on this - simplifying and clarifying the wording, plus some editorial fixes. I think this is an improvement to some extent. I opted to leave the axes section in there since it does actually complete the subject somewhat, but added a "main template" link to Aircraft principal axes. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)