crosswind

At speed, it was probably hard to keep on the road even without a crosswind hitting it.

First, it would lower the highest rotor, and second, crosswind would have the opposite effect on the low rotor.

Incidentally, do they teach that you should crab into a crosswind for your entire final approach nowadays?

Lighter planes are more easily pushed by the wind, which only really ups your difficulty level during crosswind landings.

My dad's VW bus was a challenge to drive in the Midwest in a crosswind.

In a crosswind landing, you can't allow the nose to be off the ground track[1].

There is too much risk that a crosswind gust can destablise the bike and rider.

Sounds cool until you consider that there is usually a crosswind component to every landing.

And now the vents are in the thermodynamically opposite place they should be, and simultaneously sheltered from crosswind by the gumdrop shape?

He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

One afternoon I was departing east, climbing and preparing to turn crosswind at 1000 AGL.

So, you transition to uncoordinated (slipping) flight, where you dip a wing into the crosswind to keep the ground track aligned with the desired track.

It had a low drag coefficient, but there wasn't much of a practical design to maintain: "the car is so tall that a stiff crosswind could send it careening to the side."

According to wikipedia: "Due to crosswind, the bomb missed the aiming point, the Aioi Bridge, by approximately 800 ft (240 m) and detonated directly over Shima Surgical Clinic"

"crosswind" in the landing contexts is imperceptible at cruise.

"For example, the car is remarkably sleek head-on and moves through the wind almost effortlessly, but the car is so tall that a stiff crosswind could send it careening to the side." This statement in the article is odd to me.

Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them.