Talk:Aircraft flight dynamics

message: I find the introductory definitions of yaw, pitch and roll quite confusing. Do these angles fix the orientation of the aircraft in absolute terms (based on fixed north–south, east–west and up–down axes), or do they only describe *changes* in attitude relative to axes based on the plane's current orientation?
For example, suppose an aircraft has a pitch of 10 degrees and a roll of 20 degrees. I imagine this to mean that the nose-to-tail axis is first pitched up 10 degrees to the horizontal, and the aircraft is then rotated 20 degrees about its nose-to-tail axis. If the aircraft now pitches up a further 5 degrees then is that 5 degrees a rotation about the wingtip-to-wingtip axis, or about a horizontal axis?
Similarly with yaw. Does it make sense to say an aircraft has a yaw of 30 degrees, and if so 30 degrees relative to what? Or does a yaw of 30 degrees just mean the aircraft has *changed* heading by 30 degrees and could actually be pointing in any direction? And is the yaw axis always vertical, or is it perpendicular to the nose-to-tail and wingtip-to-wingtip axes, and therefore varies depending on the aircraft's current attitude?
The "Coordinate systems" section, which I hoped might clarify, actually does nothing of the sort. It says that "the pose of an object" is described as follows:
"The positive X axis goes out the nose of the airplane
The positive Y axis goes out the left wing of the airplane
The positive Z axis goes out the top of the airplane
Roll, pitch and and yaw constitute rotation around X, Y, and Z, respectively. The directions of all three elements are depicted in the picture above."
This makes no sense, because if the axes are relative to the object then there is, at any time, never any rotation about any of the axes, so these angles can at best describe only changes in the "pose" of the object, not the "pose" itself.
I could go on, but I'll just conclude by saying I think this stuff need a rewrite by someone who fully understands it. 00:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - we are only interested in small angle changes about a nominal flight condition.  However, you are also correct that the axis definition is far from clear - time to correct it.  Thank you for your observation Gordon Vigurs 09:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Roll, pitch and yaw, usually refer to angular velocity components, moments or incremental angles.  Large angles tend to adopt a different nomenclature in aeronautics, such as 'heading' for yaw and 'bank' for roll.  However, there does not appear a universal nomenclature as to whether we are concerned about perturbation motions about axes, or specification of orientation, so I will not make an issue of it.  In most contexts where large angles are used, the attitude would usually be defined as a quaternion. Gordon Vigurs 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change to the coordinate systems section to try to clarify this. I think the main source of my confusion is that yaw, pitch and roll do sometimes, in some contexts, seem to refer to angles measured relative to a fixed coordinate system. So, in some contexts (though perhaps not aeronautics), an object's pitch, roll and yaw angles completely specify its orientation in space. That is what the coordinate systems section originally implied, in contradiction to other parts of the explanation. If you can find any way to further improve this, perhaps weaving in some of your explanation above, then please go ahead! 13:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your modification is correct.  It's just that in this context we are trying to linearise equations to study dynamics, rather than solve the equations of motion explicitly.  Gordon Vigurs 19:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I consulted the article in hopes of clearing up precisely this point, so was somewhat disappointed.  The above discussion helps, and it would be good to add something of the sort to the article.  E.g. the yaw axes in particular is fixed with respect to the platform, and is used to describe things (angular velocity components, moments of inertia, torques, or incremental angles) that do not depend on the the current attitude of the platform.  If the pilot looks forward and sees the world generally moving from right to left, then he would say he has a positive yaw rate, and could use the rudder to correct it.  That applies regardless whether he's flying north, east, or upside-down.  In the context of flight dynamics, I think in can make the same statement about pitch and roll.  --Jrvz 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing explanation 

message: I tagged the article for cleanup because of redundancies, gaps, and technical inaccuracies, especially in the beginning. Some of these problems have been discussed above. I made a first run at tackling these issues, and hope to see more people join in. Dhaluza 16:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be confusion between yaw, which is referred to inertial axes, and sideslip which is referred to the velocity vector.  I don't mind what terms are used, but they must be kept distinct. Also, wings level is not the only equilibrium state; a steady turn takes place at an appropriate bank angle. During the turn the aircraft is in force and moment equilibrium.  Regarding spacecraft, forces and moments do not arise as a consequence of orientation with respect to the velocity vector.  Body rotational motion is effectively decoupled from translational motion, consequently none of this analysis is relevant to them.  I suggest restricting the scope of the article explicitly to fixed wing aircraft. Gordon Vigurs 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the yaw/slip problem is where I got stuck and gave up. You explained it very well here, so perhaps you can take a crack at it? Dhaluza 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear this is an area where, to quote G B Shaw, we might be separated by a common language.  I suspect the UK aeronautical jargon may differ subtly from US, and we need to agree terms for this article.Gordon Vigurs 12:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had come here with the intention of doing a cleanup. But I feel that it may be better if an expert would attempt it. As such, I have put an "expert attention needed" tag.MW ℳ 09:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Tag

message: *		front
**		dense
***		engine
***	generator
***		batteries
***			armored cockpit
**	high lifting
***			large wingspan
*		back
**		large and light
***		passenger room
**			less lifting
***			elevator with tip losses
Somehow I cannot transform this into text. Arnero 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: stability dictates the whole plane

message: Would it be possible to change the picture demonstrating yaw, pitch and roll? The current one gets the point across fine, but is too 'cartoony' and detracts from the article in my opinion. Thanks! 82.37.152.185 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not "get the point across fine". Quite apart from style, it's a very confusing drawing with weird perspective and axes difficult to make out. --John of Paris 09:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page picture 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: (source -> destination)
:With
::source=axis_type and destination=axis_type
:::with
::::axis: R,P,Y  or x,y,z
::::source_type: angle A, rate T, movement along the axis V  ?? Or:  Y,Y',Y"  or A,R,V (with x,y,z above or with r,p,y above), or A,R,'
::::destination_type: momentum around that axis N, force along that axis F  or Torque T (with A,R,V above)
Inertia
:Momentum of inertia:  M_axis
:mass:     m
Arnero (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  systematic symbols 

message: Mathematical mistake: mass is a constant, so it should remain after taking the derivative.
::X_f=m\frac{du_f}{dt}=m\frac{dU}{dt}\cos(\theta-\alpha)-mU\frac{d(\theta-\alpha)}{dt}\sin(\theta-\alpha)
::Z_f=m\frac{dw_f}{dt}=m\frac{dU}{dt}\sin(\theta-\alpha)+mU\frac{d(\theta-\alpha)}{dt}\cos(\theta-\alpha)
I will change the mistake in article. It doesn't affect the outcome (because the term will be neglected as unimportant in the next sentence), but makes it correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.207.11 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tiny mistake 

message: What is missing here is any hint how these notions apply to helicopters. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  Feel free to start chasing down information that would help ensure helicopter flight dynamics are covered, either in this article or, if necessary, in another.  I'm doing that (just started today) for spacecraft flight dynamics.  N2e (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopters? 

message: I don't know who decided to do all this moving about, but it seems that a page which was generally about pitch yaw and rollhas been hijacked into something about aircraft dynamics.
Pitch yaw and roll apply to several things, not just aircraft. While spacecraft are now covered, what about underwater vehicles?
As a general topic, pitch yaw and roll was perfect, perhaps someone can fix that page so that it is either a db page or has a basic expanation that covers all topics form aircraft to robots?
At the moment it is a circular redirect between a couple of dynamics pages Chaosdruid (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: +1. I noticed that the German articles on pitch, roll and yaw axis (:de:Nickachse, :de:Rollen_(Bewegung), :de:Gieren) do not link to the English wikipedia. Unfortunately, there seems to be no adequate article. This looks like the closest you can get. Yet, it does not explicitly explain pitch, roll and yaw.-----<)kmk(>--- (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: Yep.  Whole article is uncited (much of it dubious too).  One big disorganized pedantic digression.  It's basically "Look at me!  I know a bunch of equations!  I am SOOO smart!"  I gave up trying to edit flight dynamics articles for better lay understanding a long time ago.  The pedants are relentless.  108.7.229.24 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantry in action 

message: If you search for "Yaw, pitch, and roll" you will be redirected to Aircraft principal axes while you will be redirected to Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft) if you search for "Yaw, pitch and roll". Since the same search (except a comma) will bring you to two different places a merger seems appropriate. Soerfm (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: What's the difference between Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft)  and Aircraft flight mechanics ?Df (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft flight mechanics 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Attitude control (fixed-wing aircraft). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Attitude control (fixed-wing aircraft) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Attitude control (fixed-wing aircraft)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: One of the most severe structural problems I encounter at Wikipedia on a regular basis concerns the use of sloppy redirects. 
In this case, aircraft attitude redirects here, but this page is entirely too small of a box. 
Sometimes that's nevertheless the right choice, if you make the situation explicit, as I have endeavoured to do with this early addition to the lead:  
These are collectively known as aircraft attitude, often principally relative to the atmospheric frame in normal flight, but also relative to terrain during takeoff or landing, or when operating at low elevation. The concept of attitude is not specific to fixed-wing aircraft, but also extends to rotary aircraft such as helicopters, and dirigibles, where the flight dynamics involved in establishing and controlling attitude are entirely different. 
You can argue that this doesn't belong here, but not without posting the redirect to its own proper, independent context. — MaxEnt 21:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from aircraft attitude  

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 2pou (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 January 2023 

message: The content in the section "Dynamic stability and control" should be merged with Aircraft dynamic modes as it is a dedicated page covering the same topic but without the same level of depth, so it would benefit from having the content moved over. The section should then be kept as a WP:SUMMARY section. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move content to [[Aircraft dynamic modes]]