2
$\begingroup$

There is currently a tag synonym suggestion that would like to see as a synonym of .

Do we want to accept this?

Are there better alternatives?

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

7
$\begingroup$

Personally, I think that is a subset of aircraft physics, not a synonym, so I don't think the tags should be merged.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the problem is that the aircraft-physics tag description seems to describe flight dynamics rather than all other physics. I would remove the "stability and control" which is definitely a flight dynamics aspect. For example, "Physics as they apply to aircraft, including aircraft motion and forces affecting an aircraft, its propulsion or other components." $\endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    May 8, 2018 at 11:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Sanchises If we make that edit to the tag description, it might be a good idea to also mention something like "Questions about stability and control should be tagged with flight-dynamics instead," as many users might not be aware of the distinction. $\endgroup$
    – reirab
    May 15, 2018 at 21:41
2
$\begingroup$

I do not think that they should be merged.

Consider a question about the the distribution of fuel in a wing, and its effect on the structure of the wing (stress, strain, etc.) at rest.

This question could be tagged with but not with since there is no change in time.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The tag description of aircraft physics is:

Physics as they apply to aircraft, including aircraft motion, forces affecting an aircraft, and stability and control.

That of flight dynamics is:

...the study of the physics driving the performance, stability, and control of aircraft. It is concerned with how forces acting on the aircraft influence its speed, altitude and attitude with respect to time.

So as stated here, flight dynamics is a sub-set of aircraft physics. As is aircraft-structures, hydraulic-system, electric-system, air-conditioning, aerodynamics - in fact most other tags. Taken literally, [aircraft-physics] seems way too broad.

From the definition of the tag, it looks as if the original intent of the tag was indeed to describe flight-dynamics since these are explicitly stated. It would make sense to me if [aircraft-physics] was merged with [flight-dynamics], and if a question on aircraft structures would be tagged [aircraft-structures]

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .