Talk:Military aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

As briefly discussed in Talk:Military_aircraft_list the large list in that article has been broken down across several categories, [Military aircraft list] currently redirects to Military aircraft.


Hello, I'm a french wikipedian and I don't understand why exists on the wikipedia (free community) a link having a relationship with a play Micro$oft (Flight Simulator) whereas Micro$oft is against the Free community. Could somebody explain me? Thanks

it is arguable today that Microsoft is entirely "against" the free community; it has open sourced some of its software, sometimes using sourceforge. in any case, microsoft's business principles do not concern us here. this is an encyclopedia intended to provide helpful, accurate information, and that goal overrides any personal objections we have regarding the external sites to which we link. ✈ James C. 07:01, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
Escuse me for the delay, you are right, that doesn't concern us, but I wonder if this link is encyclopedic. I think, it isn't indispensable. Escuse me for my english, I'm bad.
I agree, I don't see how a link to a game site can be appropriate where I added a link yesterday to airfighters.com where people can view photos of the real thing and it got removed. This is the Military Aircraft page and not the Military Aircraft Games page, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomPhanII (talkcontribs) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


British Military Aircraft[edit]

Below is a link to a page containing the leading particulars of all British Military aircraft. I don't know where this could be best utilised, here seemed a good start. http://www.jap100a-01.mod.uk/Jap(d)/JAP%20100A%2002%20Chap%201.3.htm Dredwerkz (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cargo Planes"[edit]

"Calling a military aircraft a "cargo plane" is incorrect, because military transport planes also carry paratroopers and other soldiers." But wouldnt the soldiers also qualify as cargo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.58.29 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Paraffin fuel aircraft and tank-in-tank[edit]

In the documentary "Generals at War: The Battle of Midway ", it was mentioned that for safety (aircraft carriers under fire had the risk of airplane fuels on deck being ignited trough enemy fire), they switched to using "paraffin fuel". Can someone look into this and mention it ?

Another thing they described was that WW2 fighters such as the Wildcat used 2 fuel tanks placed in each other, the first one being a leather bag in a metal tank. This prevented the buildup of airplane gas fumes in the tank, eliminating ignition when shot upon by an enemy airplane. Mention in article. 91.182.172.104 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)