This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of theAviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists ofopen tasks andtask forces. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the followingcriteria 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 DynamicsMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPhysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byFluid Dynamics Taskforce.

I have suggested that the content on this page be merged intoWingtip 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 |^talk18:07, 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 |^talk23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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?121a001216:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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? —Pengo22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Turbulence" applies to both air and water, doesn't it? And regardless of what caused it, animal or machine.LarRan20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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

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]

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 theRECAT 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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20120923033201/http://defense.aol.com/2012/08/30/afsoc-crash-report-faults-understanding-of-osprey-wake-effects tohttp://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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

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

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.

• C-Class aviation articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class fluid dynamics articles
• Fluid dynamics articles

• Aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Aviation articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• Aviation articles needing attention to grammar