Talk:Climb (aeronautics)

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.

climb profile

Does anyone know what the following part of the article is based on.

During long climbs the angle or rate of climb is often reduced. This slows the speed of ascent but increases the speed of forward progress towards the destination, often saving time when taken over the entire journey.

As far as I know a normal climb is always done with a fixed IAS or mach number. Fysics may decrease the rate of climb but this is not caused by an intentional increase of the forward speed.83.81.45.179 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due no reply and the fact that i still believe this part of the article is incorrect i removed it together with the next sentence. A high speed climb (less vertical speed) does not save the engines since the engines remain operated at climb thrust.83.81.45.179 (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this paragraph (in part) back. We (pilots) reduce the rate of climb to see over the nose better, and to fly at a higher airspeed for better cooling of the engine. MarshallKe (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article incorrect

The Aerodynamics of a climb as explained in this article is incorrect. A climb is a product of having excess thrust beyond that required for level flight; lift does not cause an airplane to climb.

why does a climb always has to be the product of extra thrust? I can also climb perfectly well whitout this extra thrust, all i have to do is trade in some speed.Vlieger (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't have any extra thrust beyond that required for level flight, you'll stall if you attempt to climb. So I guess one could say climbing "is the product" of having extra thrust... just like one could say accelerating an automobile "is the product of having fuel in it"; however, that's not necessarily the best description. Climbing may be the product of having extra thrust, but that's not what it is. --LjL (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A climb can be as small as 10ft and there can be plenty of speed tradable for altitude without approaching stall speed. excess off thrust seems a poor explenation of a climb to me. I think the only good climb discription is an excess of lift compared to weight. A secondary effect is that the extra lift brings some extra drag requiring extra thrust to maintain speed.83.81.47.12 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 August 2015

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, disambig pages merged ~~~~

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

Climb → Climb (aviation) – It's quite WP:ASTONISH-ing that this subject is at the ambiguous title when there are at least two equally, if not more, historically important subjects at Climbing (disambiguation) which "climb" could refer, including Climbing and Climbing (sport). However, per page views, it doesn't seem as though either one of the aforementioned topics qualify for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of this term, so I believe that this page should be moved so that Climb can become a redirect to Climbing (disambiguation) (since Climb (disambiguation) redirects there.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as User:Steel1943 another one well spotted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; clear absence of a primary topic. bd2412 T 12:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move this article per nom, but move The Climb (disambiguation) to this location and add entries for "climb" to it, since not all "climbing" are also noun forms for "climb" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I oppose this option unless Climbing (disambiguation) and The Climb (I assume this is the page that was meant to be said since The Climb (disambiguation) is a redirect) are merged together as well, making one disambiguation page; I'm "neutral" on this since I think the "the", in this case, is a sufficient disambiguator based on the subjects listed at The Climb. Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with caveats expressed above. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and redirect Climb to Climbing, the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Climb (aeronautics). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support - will only support a move to Climb (aeronautics, not (aviation), in line with existing article Descent (aeronautics). GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Climb (aeronautics) per GeorgeGriffiths. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Climb (aeronautics), noting consistency with Descent (aeronautics). If there is any PrimaryTopic for climb, it would be climbing followed by Sport climbing. These are highly related, Sport climbing is a subset of climbing. The dab page seems very human-centric; vines climb too. Should climb become a DABCONCEPT page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I am also okay with Climb (aeronautics). Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clean-up

When I discovered this article it contained nonsense suggesting a climb is achieved by increasing the lift on the wings! It was all unsourced. This shows the danger of writing new material without having the benefit of reliable published sources.

I erased at least some of the offending material. I will return shortly to do more repair work and supply some citable sources. Dolphin (t) 12:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]