Talk:Wake turbulence

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 met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Merge

I have suggested that the content on this page be merged into Wingtip vortices. Wake turbulence is an effect that deserves its own article, but wingtip vortices are only an (admittedly large) component of this and 90% of the content here should be on that page. -Lommer | ^talk 18:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone a poor attempt at a merge that resulted in something even worse. I've maintained the wake turb-only aspects here, and removed duplicated information and wintip-vortex-specific info to that page. -Lommer | ^talk 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wake turbelence article should be merged with the "jet wash" article (or redirect jet wash to this page).

Jet Wash vs Wingtip Vortices

My understanding is that these are two distinct phenomena, both of which might be classified under "wake turbulence", which just means turbulence coming in the wake of something. Wingtip vortices are the single biggest cause - they feed off themselves and can linger for up to two minutes in stable air - whereas jet wash is just the temporary blast of hot air rushing backwards.

I don't know enough to write the article myself, but I do think that there should be a separate article entirely on jet wash, which right now redirects here - to an explanation of wingtip vortices. This doesn't make much sense.

--User: dmhaglund, 1228 UTC, 21 December 2006

Other authorities

Do other control agencies do as the FAA does by saying "caution wake turbulence, you are following a [insert type of A/C]"? Is there an international standard? 121a0012 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A380 is categorized as "super"

I have heard of this, but didn't find any reliable source. If a source is found, please edit the new info in.

Eurocontrol refers to this category in the ASTERIX CAT011 document, on page 39. (CAT011). PeterE23 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex wake

Wake vortex redirects to this article. But flying (and swimming) animals also leave wake vorticies and (i think) this has little to do with "wake turbulence". Any better suggestions for a redirect or perhaps a new article is in order? —Pengo 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Turbulence" applies to both air and water, doesn't it? And regardless of what caused it, animal or machine. LarRan 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal on-ground experience of a wake vortex

In September of 1998, me and three friends were playing golf on the Glyfada Golf Club, near Athens, Greece. The golf club is situated right below the approach path to the runway for planes on their way to land on the international airport, which is only a couple of kms or so away. During our round of golf several planes passed above us. At one hole, right after a plane had passed, and - typically - just as one of us was about to hit his tee shot, there was a tremendous "swoosh", and a whirlwind ran through the branches of a big tree nearby. We stood in complete awe, following the whirlwind with our eyes as it travelled from tree to tree, until it eventually faded away. It was almost like an invisible force bending branches and foliage, though we of course could relate it to the plane that had passed just moments ago. After a couple of moments, we pulled ourselves together, and continued with the round. The same thing happened once more on the same round.

Wow! How interesting. The talk page is not for personal essays though, it is used to talk about how to improve the article.--74.240.238.50 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gripen acident caused by wake turbulence

A Gripen has been crashed after hitinh a wake turbulence. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_JAS_39_Gripen#September_1999 --Daniel Souza (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground damage

I don't have the knowledge to write it, but the article should mention ground damage and various airport compensation schemes -- Q Chris (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun

I removed the Top Gun reference, as I've been unable to substantiate that wake turbulence would cause that specific series of events. Usually, wake turbulence causes an airplane to flip over or be too damaged to continue controlled flight, and it's usually caused by a much larger plane affecting the flight of a smaller one. In this case, the term "jet wash" was used, which is actually the exhaust air from an engine - not the turbulence caused by the leading plane's wings. 72.199.249.133 (talk)

Does this article not specifically deal with Jet Wash? How would this not be relevant? I can only see it as not if the author attributed it to wingtip vortices. I've readded this until someone can prove otherwise, or until such time that jetwash is not a subject of this article. 212.192.142.199 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Super"

A few months ago, someone added the Antonov 225 to the "Super" category. While the A380 is indeed considered "Super" by Eurocontrol (and in general by most of the aviation industry, though not (yet) an ICAO standard), I cannot find any evidence of the Antonov being in the same category. Does someone know if this is correct? And so: where do you find the information?

Thanks! - Kthoelen (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: he/she was probably referring to the RECAT initiative, but still... - Kthoelen (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAA treats the An225 and A380 the same for separations:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_JO_7110.626.pdf

Xukuth (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wake turbulence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923033201/http://defense.aol.com/2012/08/30/afsoc-crash-report-faults-understanding-of-osprey-wake-effects to http://defense.aol.com/2012/08/30/afsoc-crash-report-faults-understanding-of-osprey-wake-effects/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wake turbulence in any fluid

This article shouldn't refer to aerodynamics specifically. In hydrodynamics you have the same issues. E.g. vessels, floating or submerged, moving through water, and fully or partially submerged stationary objects in waves and current.