Talk:First generation jet fighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force

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.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Aircraft WikiProject

A fact from First generation jet fighter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 May 2008.

I'm holding off on further editing or linking this page until I can get a stronger feel that I can actually cite some of these statements. As has been discussed on the Fighter aircraft page, the whole concept of the generations may be original research/synthesis or marketing jibba jabba (i.e. unreliable source). I'll get back to it when I've done a little more poking around.

This article might need to be renamed.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what about turboprops

Which are a type of jet engine. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Shark was turboprop powered. It was a rejected hybrid power follow-on to the Fireball. Turboprops aren't really suited to fighters since the big advantage is in efficiency and not performance.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P-59 Airacomet

Why isn't the P-59 Airacomet included? -- Donald Albury 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of planes that could be included, and feel free to add it. These are examples, not a list. The P-59 might be worth adding as a comment as well simply because it showed that jet power did not automatically produce a superior aircraft.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Me-163 'Komet'

Where is the Komet? It's probably the most famous of the rocket-propelled aircraft and was definitely one of the first. Or, is there another article for rocket craft?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a fighter, clearly, but it's not really a jet aircraft in the usual sense. Rocket-powered aircraft exists, and the 163 is very briefly covered there. Rocket powered fighters are not something that's seen much use and probably doesn't need its own article. The XP-79 was proposed as a rocket fighter, but was tested (and was a miserable failure) as a jet fighter. The 163 (and things like the X-1) could be covered here as contemporaries, design inspiration, etc, but even as the primary author I'm afraid this article has massive WP:NOR issues. I mostly wrote it because 4th has an article and it seems a little out of place to not have one for each.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)