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

Military history: Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Just two technical comments:

Air friction slows the plane down all the time not just during climbing. It's the tradeoff of kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy (height) that slows the plane down during the climb.
At high speeds the plane will have more air friction (squared law) and thus be more inefficient than flying at cruise speed. The plane flies slower during a climb, and thus air friction would be less than cruise.

Daleh 15:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Should the title of this article be "The Scissors"? Should "the" be part of the title, and if so, should Scissors be capitalized? Dhaluza 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, 12 years later. Per WP:DEFINITE the definite article should not be included. I propose 'Scissors (aeronautics)' in consistency with Slow roll (aeronautics), I'll wait a bit and see if anyone has better suggestions. Retswerb (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (Edited to correct WP:DEFINITE link)[reply]

Diagram

I think this article really needs a diagram for both types of Scissors. I have trouble understanding the mass of text, so clarifying that would also help. Calling on an expert might be a good idea too. Ian01 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link Instead

In the third paragraph for Rolling Scissor, I feel that the long-winded and irrelevant description of barrel rolls should be removed and instead the barrel roll page on Wikipedia should be linked in-line. This is a page on Scissor maneuvers, not on barrel rolls. 209.164.246.11 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 June 2020

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) Calidum 19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Scissors → Scissors (aeronautics) – Title currently includes definite article and is not adequately disambiguated. This move would align in format with Slow roll (aeronautics). Change has been suggested in talk page but I would like some more eyes on it for possible suggestions or alternatives prior to making the move. Retswerb (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No disambiguation at all at the moment and much clearer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY--Ab207 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maneuver vs Flow

I've been reading the US Navy CNATRA manual on BFM & SEM. It seems to suggest that the scissor is more of a situation (or 'flow' for lack of a better term) that the fighters may find themselves in, instead of a proper maneuver. The manual describes the scissor as a series of horizontal or vertical overshoots provoked by a horizontal or vertical reversal of the defender following an in-close overshoot of the attacker. It states that the defender may reverse to force a scissor in an attempt to neutralize the fight if he or she is certain that the attacker has committed an in-close overshoot, and that a successful reversal will cause the attacker to lose the offensive advantage. While I agree that the manual is written from the perspective of an aircraft which has nonoptimal performance in scissor maneuvering, which would cause the writer to desist from framing the scissor as an offensive tactic anyway, I still have reason to believe that the scissor is in effect more of a 'flow' that the fight may take, with the proper 'tactical maneuver' being the defender's decision to reverse upon the overshoot. Additionally, I believe that the manual suggests that the scissor is not a situation that should be avoided at all costs by a modern rate fighter per se; but a preventable situation to most attackers via proper pursuit curve selection, and a possibility to neutralize the fight to most defenders via a properly timed reversal. I am aware that this manual does not cover dissimilar ACM so I am open to being corrected on this last point. Jigsaw10 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]