Talk:Turn and slip indicator

Name
Always a Turn and Slip indicator to me!!! What concensus is there for a name change?Petebutt (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the name Turn and balance is the most appropriate name for this instrument. Especially compared to the name turn and bank as I think that name is misleading. As for the name turn and slip it could be equally named turn and skid, The word balance refers to both slip, skid and balanced turns, so I think that is most suitable. Although I do agree Turn and slip is one of the more common names this instrument travels under.Assonance (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of what an editor considers linguistically appropriate, WP reflects terms actually in use in the world. If you want to call it turn and balance, find verifiable references that call it that. Turn and bank is also wrong, agreed (a TC doesn't show bank!) The correct name is turn and slip, see for instance MS-28041 and the PHAK. Cleaned up a lot of other errors that crept in to the article.Altaphon (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Great improvement. Just one minor correction – the terms "turn coordinator" and "turn and bank" are not interchangeable. They refer to different instruments.
 * I don't like "turn and bank" either, but I've found an FAA reference at . Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Even the FAA isn't immune to making that kind of mistake, especially when it comes to training mechanics ;) Altaphon (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, but it didn't fix the problem I mentioned. I've rewritten the section, and placed more emphasis on the facts which might lead people to the opinion that "turn and bank" is misleading or confusing. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Underdamped
reverted my addition of a link to Underdamped. I think the link was helpful – a worn out dashpot would produce an underdamped system (not necessarily characterized obvious oscillation but certainly excessive overshoot as described in the disputed passage). Anyways, I don't think I clearly understand the revert edit comment, "The text says these indications are caused by roll-rate responses, not oscillation." I am requesting clarification here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says that the turn coordinator responds more quickly to the initiation of a turn than a traditional turn indicator because it responds to the initial roll-rate of the aircraft (before the aircraft has had time to change heading). I see no mention of "overshoot" in the article, nor of oscillation. I haven't seen any sources suggesting an "underdamped" TC with a faulty dashpot is underdamped in the sense implied by the target article. Do you have any? Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a Dashpot is to introduce damping into a system. A system with a non-operational dashpot would be underdamped. This sort of basic logic is not the sort of thing that normally requires a ref. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree a Dashpot will introduce damping. I also agree that this system is not characterized by obvious oscillation. If there is no natural frequency, damping ratio is undefined and underdamped is technically incorrect. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pursue this further. I suspect I know more about control theory and you know more about avionics and we do not have enough knowledge in common to resolve this. It's also a very little thing. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "knowledge" that matters, it's evidence. Thanks for confirming that you don't have any. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ouch! ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)