This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

The contents of the Headwind page were merged into Headwind and tailwind on September 12, 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

I am suggesting a single page merge for at least head and tailwind. They really have no major difference in content that they need two articles. Presumably to some article such as headwind and tailwind. TheHYPO ( talk) 01:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like that happened, but now we have two different sections with nearly identical wording. Thundermaker ( talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I think there is an error on this page caused from copying sentances from the headwind page. Where the article states: "A headwind increases the object's speed and reduces the time required to reach its destination." I beleive it should say tailwind instead of headwind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.235.146 ( talk) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The current wording makes it sound as if headwind and tailwind are separate components. They are not; they are opposite views of the same component. If headwind is X, tailwind is -X. I am going to fix this and add sourcing. Thundermaker ( talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The introduction (specifically the blurb about aeronautics) is worded strangely and flows poorly. It should be broken up into multiple sentences or, at the very least, employ a semicolon or two.