Talk:Rate of climb

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

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

Criticism 2008

Serious editing required here. A number of incorrect statements and statements made without reference to the limited conditions under which they are correct (dVx/dz dependent upon shape of power available curve and upon Mach number effects at higher altitudes and velocities, bias of weight influence on props vs. jets, etc.) Should also have a few integrals for calculating total time between two levels, influence of supercharging, etc. (Weirpwoer (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Anglo-saxon

The article says that ft/min is mainly used in Anglo-Saxon countries, while elsewhere m/s was common. That is, at least, unexact. Since most GA aircrafts are built in the U.S., ft/min is worldwide a most common unit for the ROC. For Germany, I can say that only sailplanes (and maybe parachutes) express their ROC in m/s. Even ultralight aircrafts, mostly build in Germany, use ft/min for ROC and ft for altitude. 62.225.191.42 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glide Path

Glide path has absolutely nothing to do with rate of climb. It might be important information, but if so it deserves a page of its own as it is completely unrelated to any rate of climb. Solidpoint (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I can't imagine that www.flashcardmachine.com is an acceptable source for quoting in Wikipedia. --BjKa (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Since this article basically explains the angle of climb as well, I think it would be best to merge that little stubby article into this one. --BjKa (talk)