Talk:Inertia coupling

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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

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.

Should there be a redirect to this page for "inertial coupling"? I found a reference to this page on X-4_Bantam that used this. I fixed the link, but perhaps a redirect would help the search match. I would make the link but I am not confident how or if this is the correct choice. DRA 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Binksternet 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Description

As pointed out by user DVdm in Carl Sagan's Discussion Page "the source really does not qualify for Wikipedia") Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

I made some changes trying to make the entry a bit more accurate. I am surprised there is no page on stable and unstable design. Also it would be easier to describe this if some vivid informal language could be used which would go against the strict fact approach allowed in Wikipedia, and thus would be certainly cut off. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High speed

I'm having trouble following the exact meaning here (why, for example, does putting even MORE weight high up on the F-104's tail help the problem?), but mostly I'm wondering, it's just a matter of fuselage shape and wingspan/aero area, and not aerodynamic, then why does it manifest at high speeds (i.e. the X-2 disaster)? If it's not aerodynamic, one would expect it to manifest equally regardless of speed. AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description section is too opaquely technical

The description section is extremely technical and quite opaque to readers who aren't up to slogging through lots of equations; it provides no way for a layperson to intuit the mechanics of the phenomenon. A diagram visually demonstrating the mechanics of inertia coupling, and showing the mechanism behind the phenomenon, would be extremely helpful. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes} 16:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]