Talk:Saab 35 Draken

Survivors list should be adressed

As mentioned in a previous comment, I suggest this section is moved to a sub page and vastly expanded. Partly because I'm no fan of long lists on a main Wiki page but mostly because the list can be vastly expanded. There are lots and lots of preserved Drakens around the world, in Sweden alone there are no less than 39 (known) aircraft! Certainly a subject worth exploring further. Per80 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

An additional displayed Draken

There is a Draken on display at the Mannaminne exhibition in Nordingrå, Sweden. There's even a picture on Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_J-35_Draken_at_Mannaminne.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.11.179 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no less than 39(!) known preserved Drakens in Sweden alone and several more around the world besides from those few mentioned in the list. Definately a subject worth expanding. Per80 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How many crashed?

How many of the Draken crashed? RGDS Alexmcfire

Counting all air forces I get 141 crashes killing 34 pilots. I'm not sure yet if that includes the only civilian crash so far in the states were the pilot survived. --Towpilot 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Number built?

Number built? According to Saab information papers 604 aircraft were constructed. The article says 615. What is the source?

I've changed this to 644 and cited the book Saab commissioned as its official history. The text reads (pg 55): "In all, 644 Drakens were built, 52 being sold to the Danish Air force. Finland, in addition to urchasing a number of Swedish-built 35Bs, also produced 12 of the aircraft at its own Valmet plant." Akradecki 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That comes to 652. I counted 651 with 51 going to Denmark!--Petebutt (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

First supersonic

The J35 was the first European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability.

removed this as the English Electric Lightning was 8 years earlier.

8 years? Now you're being a little too optimistic. The EE Lightning prototype flew in 1954, the 35A Draken in 1955 (the SAAB 210 mini-Draken flew in 1952 though) but aircraft actually fitted for combat were seeing operational service in 1959 in both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Name

I have heard Mr Erik Bratt, the Chief Designer of the entire SAAB 35 projekt, in person, confirm that the word "Draken" is referring to the shape of a kite, and not to the mythical animal "Dragon"! Alltough, the fact that the word in Swedish do have a double meaning, he said, gave it "An Edge"!

Also, the Swedish Air Force designation system of airplanes always have a space between the letter and the number, like in "J 35A". It is not correct to write "J35A"! There are no exepctions! A dash doesn't count as space, i.e. J-35 is also incorrect! --Towpilot 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the Kite that the name refers to is the toy kite, or the bird kite? The hyperlink currently goes to the toy, I'm not sure whether it should be to the other one or not. --grsing

I am pretty sure that the reference is to the toy kite. MoRsE 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct MoRsE! It's a reference to the shape of a "simple geometric kite"!--Towpilot 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A trivia is that Erik Bratt, during a seminar on the Draken, casually and wittingly mentions that "it is not every day one's wife gets an aircraft named after her". Mrs. Bratt was not in the audience and I'm not sure she would have appreciated it. T96 grh 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Erik Bratt, she's actually the one who cracked that joke herself. He was talking about it the same time he confirmed the real meaning of the name, as mentioned above, and I think it might be in his own autobiography "Silvervingar" as well. Any which way, it's still a good story :-) --Towpilot 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Supersonic capability

Draken was NOT capable of Mach 2.0. Not even close, the intake design prevents it. J-35F was capable of about Mach 1.6. D might have been somewhat faster, but not Mach 2.--Mikoyan21 11:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just verified the specs against two different sources. Both cite 2125 km/h at 11,000 m which is Mach 2. What's your reference? A fixed intake does not automatically preclude Mach 2 performance because the aerodynamic effects of adjacent airframe components (e.g. nose cone) can provide good pressure recovery. F-16 is certainly Mach 2 capable with a fixed intake. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Air Force stated numerous times that top speed of Draken (they had models B, C and F/S) was about Mach 1.6. Finnish MiG pilots had Mach 2 acceleration as a part of their initiation ritual - this was because MiG was only Finnish plane capable of achieving that speed (ie. Draken was not). Yes, I've also seen it claimed numerous times that Draken was capable of Mach 2. There are several possibilities: one is that Swedes measured ground speed from a plane which was in strong jet stream; other was that they had specificially modified Draken capable of breaking Mach 2 barrier, for promotional purposes. Caveat here is that D was lighter than F, so it may have been slightly faster; however, the aerodynamics were nearly identical so I remain doubtful. --Mikoyan21 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your personal experience but again, all of my sources cite Mach 2 as the top speed. It's certainly credible for an extremely low aspect ratio (1.8) aircraft with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.70. Were Finnish Drakens limited to Mach 1.6 by thrust or shockwave hitting the compressor/other airflow-related issues? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen intake design mentioned as a limiting factor. As for thrust, Finnish Drakens obviously had same engines as Swedish ones. I admit I'm not expert at all on supersonic aerodynamics, but it is notoriously difficult for aircraft with fixed inlets to achieve Mach 2 (F-16 inlet is of course completely different from Draken inlets). Almost all Draken's contemporaries (MiG-21, Mirage, Starfighter, Lightning etc) had variable inlets. Operationally, the difference is of course not that big because fighters almost never use their top speed in operational use, but it may have been major point in marketing in the '60s, so I wouldn't wonder if Saab for example, built a test plane with modified inlets for breaking Mach 2 barrier. This is of course complete speculation. I wonder if people at NTPS would answer if I asked them, they still operate Drakens.--Mikoyan21 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The F-104 inlets are fixed, not variable. MiG-21 and EE Lightning have no choice but to use a variable inlet because the inlet is at the very front of the aircraft. As I mentioned above, with inlets moved further back, the adjacent aircraft structure can be designed to set up the correct airflow and shockwaves. I can only speculate about the Draken but I know for a fact this is how the F-16 gets away with a fixed inlet and Mach 2 performance. I've never seen anything other than Mach 2 written as the Draken top speed and it's not implausible so honestly I never questioned it. I'd be curious what you can find. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I was under impression that those spiked cones in F-104 inlets were indeed movable. At any rate, Draken does not have this feature. My problem with this is that if Draken was capable of Mach 2, you'd expect FAF kinda mention it.--Mikoyan21 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly an unsatisfying situation, but all the sources concur (or they all cite the same incorrect primary source... no way to tell). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reference I could find here (most of my library is in my other apartment) is Bill Gunston's "The History of Aviation" (Militärflygets historia), it mentions:

"Later versions carried a heavy bomb load and reconnaissance equipment and still reached Mach 2 (without external bomb loads or drop tanks).

When you mention it, I also remember having read in Finnish sources that the MiG-21 was the only Mach 2 -capable aircraft in Finland. At the time I didn't reflect over it, but now it makes me curious. The two things that comes to mind is that either the Finns deliberately stated that they did not perform that good at all, saving the little extra as a bad surprise for an eventual enemy, I know they have done so in other cases, the other thing is that they perhaps they did something with the engines in Finland. Perhaps they made some modifications that affected their top speed? This suggestions are however speculations. -MoRsΞ 20:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

From the book, The Saab-Scania Story, ISBN 91-7886-014-8, page 54: "Equipped with the completely new Rolls-Royce RB Series 300 Avon engine with an afterburner, the 35D became the first Draken to reach Mach 2. The combined D/F prototype made its first flight on 27 December 1960." Akradecki 17:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

SAABs own history fact sheet says 2+ Mach at >40000ft, presumably referring to the D. It is worth noting that the intake design was slightly revised for the D, suggesting that they had engine airflow related issues that became apparent when attempting to pursue the SwAF's standing M 1.8+ (sustained) requirement. With that in mind and the fact that it also had maximum wet thrust increased to some 80kN (T/W ratio of >0.7 under good circumstances) with the RM6C, the D model ultimately becoming a proper M 2.0 capable aircraft doesn't seem implausible at all. Add to that the 1.7 aspect ratio, the highly swept compound delta (80/57) etc. and it would actually seem a bit strange for it not to be able to reach M 2.0. I am curious about the FAF assessment that has been relayed by Mikoyan21, did they fly Drakens that corresponded to SwAF D units in terms of hardware and base aerodynamics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.216.65 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop mixing different variants of the Draken when Mach numbers are discussed. The J35 A B & C versions with the weaker RM6B (or Avon 200) engine did mach 1.8 out of the factory. Anything from the J35D onwards had the RM6C (Avon 300) and could do mach 2. The finish example seems flawed because all draken versions are bunched up not to mention that finland had alot of used aircraft in the inventory where the engines might have lost some thrust with the years. 85.228.58.221 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Image removal

Is there a good reason for removal of the image? Ballista 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The source image was deleted from Wikipedia. Don't know why (not on my watchlist) but I would guess incorrect/missing tags and/or copyvio. The same deal on the Viggen page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahah - that's a good 'nuff reason! - how are press photos from SAAB themselves? - I have a few (some of Draken, too, I think - how would they be affected by copyright? - Ballista 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you know for certain they are promotional photographs, cite author/souce (if know) and tag with {{promophoto}}. Applying the Fair Use clause to photos of modern aircraft is iffy since it is at least theoretically possible for someone to take a non-copyrighted photo of the subject. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added one of my own photos of one of the Desert Drakens. If you download the hi-res version, you'll notice an Irish Shamrock on the tail...the head of NTPS is Irish, and he's the primary pilot of this aircraft. Akradecki 17:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Saab 210

The Saab 210 Draken (correct name by Saab!) is not a variant of Saab 35 Draken per se! It's a completely different airplane that offcourse should be in the history but not in a list of the Saab 35 variants!--Towpilot 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok,new version about variants a little bit better but, the correct name is still "Saab 210 Draken"! --Towpilot 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Film appearances section

I don't know that the use of the Draken in the movie Fire Birds is notable enough to list here. I am taking it back out for now, please discuss here. Georgewilliamherbert 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. This is total cruft. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take everything about popculture anywhere in any article out, or keep this very very rare appereance in the text! For example, make sure all references to pop culture in the text about F-14 Tomcat is instantly removed if stuff like this doesn't interrest you! There should be No exemptions! --Towpilot 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking to the wrong people about that. We'd rather all Pop-culture references be taken out, including Top Gun references in the F-14 page. However, the consensus is the "especially notable" appearances should be kept. If you want the Firebirds mention, you need to prove it is especially notable using verifiable sources per WP:TRIV and WP:AIR page content guidleines. - BillCJ 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one would keep the Top Gun one anyways, but this one is just too minor to bother mentioning. Really. Georgewilliamherbert 04:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony here is that this appearence is the only one ever (so far) by an ex. military Saab aircraft in a Hollywood production, and that's exactly why it's "especially notable" in an article about the airplane! In fact, unlike Saab 29, 32 and 37, the Saab 35 have never ever appeared in any other feature movie either! --Towpilot 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Only very, very notable appearances - where the aircraft becomes a major focal point of the movie, not just another part of the action - deserve mentions on the aircraft article (or so we assert; others disagree). Of fighter jets, the only Hollywood movie appearance where the jet becomes a major focal point, in recent history (post-1970 at least), is Top Gun. There have been hundreds of movies with various fighters since then - none of them rise to that level of importance for the jet. Certainly not Firebirds. Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would probably have agreed if we would have been talking about the article about the movie only, but now it's all about the airplane itself. This airplane wasn't randomly picked by the production company. They were looking for something that wouldn't be recognzied by the "general audience" (like the F-5 in "Top Gun"). The airplane ended up in USA trough a museum trade and wasn't supposed to fly at all. A matter of fact, the condition was specified "for static display only!" to even allow export from Sweden. When the movie premiered in Sweden, I wrote an article in an aviation magazine there about the use of this airplane. This caused severe political turbulence about high performace airplane export, and actually changed the laws accordingly! Not my intention, but interestingly how a Hollywood B-movie ends up as a hot political subjet across the Atlantic! This really makes the use of a Saab 35 "especially notable" in this case. I can understand that some people couldn't care less about movies or airplanes, but this is not written for them. I was planning to write more about this "especially notable" appearence down the road, but maybe I should start delete stuff I find not interresting in articles I don't know much about instead.--Towpilot 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• The point on "especially notable" is that it usually requires a verifiable source attesting to its notability. If you can provide links to such articles (wouldn't mind listing yours too, but we'd need at least one more due to self-interest), it would lend weight to your case. Second, "notable" is not the same as "interesting". But if you want to delete all the non-notble cruft you find, go to it! I'll support you, but you'll find lots of opposition too from every owner of a particular video game who thinks his game is notable! - BillCJ 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another trivial addition, I remember that the aircraft also appeared in the French comic book series "Tanguy et Laverdure" ("Jaktfalkarna" in Swedish) (see image). If I remember correctly (it has been some 20 years since I read them) they were supposed to be South American fighters, possibly Brazilian.--MoRsE 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy against fun facts? Geez. I'm going to write in a Trivia section where I mention the movie appearence. I think it's funny and interesting enough to warrant a mention, and the movie article already links to this one as well. It's not as if the article is already so long that it can't handle a single little heading... Elrith 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of facts (see WP:NOT). Please respect consensus and leave the movie out of this article. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, no consensus has been reached, perhaps this issue is reaching a "heated" stage whereas it seems to be of a trivial nature. FWIW, IMHO: Bzuk 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Three people over a period of what, four days, is a Wikipedia consensus now? Good grief. I count three people for deletion and two against. That isn't a consensus where I come from.

I for one think that the movie appearance is an interesting bit of trivia. Anyone who has seen the movie and knows anything about aircraft is bound to wonder why a Draken was used and where it came from. The information fits in the article just fine and doesn't detract in any way from it. IMHO deleting stuff like this is just stupid. Elrith 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no "hard-and-fast" rule over asking for consensus of a controversial issue but in my limtied experience, you first have to clearly identify that there is call for consensus (which I can't readily see in this set of discussion comments, above), and usually set out the parameters for consensus to be reached. For example, in the case of the recent renaming of the Winnipeg International Airport, a call for consensus in changing the article title was made. A period of seven days was established in order for respondents to add their commentary. After the end of the discussion period, the original poster then reviewed the number of "pro" and "con" submissions and made a determination as to consensus. Consensus does not always mean majority, it does mean the majority of interested participants would be able to live with the final decision made, at least that is the generally understood "business leadership" application of the term. If there is truly a need for consensus on this issue, it is up to the original party to make that determination, otherwise, this issue will revert into an edit war as to what "significant" or "relevant" or "notable" actually means in context of the original posting (refresh my mind here, it is about the mention of an aircraft in a popular film? is it not? my mind wandered here as it seems a lot of time has been expended over this topic, but nontheless, IMHO, let's resolve it once and for all in this forum). Bzuk 12:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Tailless aircraft category

Just to clarify something (which I'm going to add to the article), the category is referring to a lack of horizontal tailplanes (separate elevator and horizontal stabilizer from the wing proper), not to lacking a rudder/vertical stabilizer. The Draken has a rudder, but not a horizontal stabilizer. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Crashes in Swedish service

in 1995 135 aircrafts had crashed in sweden alone according to the book Draken by Bo Widfelt

Name, Round 2

The ongoing low-grade edit war between the "experts" on the Swedish language and the aircraft's history needs to stop. In the absense of cited published, verifiable reliable sources, I've removed the translation. Please don not re-add any info regarding the name without citing a reliable source that can be verified independently. This does not include verbal info overhead in meetings or presentations, as that info is not published or verifiable. If you "saw it in a book somewhere", that's not sufficient; track down the book, then cite it, including page numbers. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There, there, don't be ashamed because you have no clue about this subject. I do not speak any greek and would therefor never make such a low-grade comment as above if you corrected a persistent miss-translation from greek, almost accepted by the old "two wrongs make a right" principle. I may not be an "expert", but Swedish is my first language and I dare anyone to prove me wrong that the given name "Draken" should be "The Kite" and not "kite". If so, I'm willing to listen. It will be veeeeery interesting. I don't mind having no translation about the name in the article, but if it should be there it should be absolutely correct (this is an encyklopedia, remember) and not based upon a longliving importunate myth that is (and this may shock you!) completely incorrect despite the fact it's been published before and therefor according to you is "verifiable" and "reliable"!

It's also very interesting that solid information directly from the mouth of the source isn't good enough or "reliable" for Wikipedia! It's not even abot a private research in this case. Erik Bratt writes about the chosen name in his aoutobiography "Silvervingar", (in english:"Silver Wings". Yeah trust me, that's exactly what it translate to!), but it's written in Swedish so I see no meaning in giving you page number to something you would not understand. How would you know I'm not lying? How would you know the book even exist if you can't find it at Barnes & Noble? --Towpilot (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the name (even if it is in Swedish) - then cite it - if not then it is better to keep it out. See Wikipedia:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - this is official Wikipedia Policy.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel. Towpilot, the problem is that other Swedish speakers are some of the ones disagreeing with you. If this were a firm, settled issue, then there would be no disagreement. That is why I am appealing to WP policy to try to settle this. If there are competing views from published reliable sources, then the solution per policy is to cite both sources. You can cite the Erik Bratt book as the source of the story, but we're still left with the translation issue if the book's in Swedish. Perhaps a reputable Swedish-English dictionary can be cited if the book has not been translated into English and is not available at my local supermarket where I buy my books. - BillCJ (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Towpilot (and others), the naming of Saab 35 was two-fold - both Dragon and Kite are correct in this case. Dragon from the mythological convention in Swedish military, and Kite for the wing planform resemblance of the toy. The Dragon-name was also used by the Saab 35 pilots in "Drakriddarorden" (The order of the dragon knights). The same witty dual-naming was applied to the Saab 37 Viggen where 'vigg' is thunderbolt (that come from the clap of Mjolnir's hammer) and also a duck which in French is called 'canard' (with reference to the canard wings). Urban Fredriksson mention the dual naming here: [1] T96 grh (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That the Swedish word drake can mean either "kite" or "dragon" is not a disputable fact and it doesn't require dedicated referencing. If someone want's to include various other tidbits about the reasoning behind the name, they should dig up some sources. Until then, I don't really see the point of smearing this dispute all over the lead.

Concering the translation, it should be noted that we're providing a translation of a term, rather than giving the plane an English name, meaning it should be written with lower-case letters. And while I know that purists will probably disagree with me on this one, I think we should also remove the definite articles. Yes, the Swedish names are formally in the definite form, but that's rather irrelevant in a translation like this since names of fighter aircraft in English are refered to without a definite article.

And could we try to go easy on the wikilinkage? Both kite and dragon are largely irrelevant links in context.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutly no clue were you could have dug up any information saying that Draken would be referred to as a "term". What kind of term? It's not a technical term, so what exactly do you mean? It's undisputable a given name like Mustang, Spitfire, Lightning or any other aircraft name, wich like in this case never was used by the military operator, but more for the purpose of marketing. If you don't want to translate it at all, fine. Then leave it out. But if you do, it have to be correct! That fighter names (or rather any airplane name) are normally referred to without a definite article in English is the real irrelevant fact here since it's not about an English or American aircraft! It's about a Swedish airplane with a Swedish name, remember. And if now a translation is considered a necessity by someone, both kite and dragon are largely relevant links in context, proven by the long ongoing confusion about the meaning and background of the name. Since we are on the subject, the SAAB 29 was never ever given a name at all by SAAB! It was first called "Flygande Tunnan" (The Flying Barrel) in media only, wich was eventually shortened to "Tunnan" (The Barrel). Soon it became a name (and defenitely not a term!) used by everyone. SAAB didn't even like it according to Lars Brising, the chief designer of the SAAB 29 project. To say that "Tunnan" is a "term" is just plain stupid and only show your lack of any knowledge in aviation history in general, and Swedish aviation history in specific!! --Towpilot (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're kinda talking past each other. I'm refering to the issue of proper translation. The way I see it is that translations of names that are not actually official are merely translations of terms. Now, If Draken had an official alternative name in English, like a NATO reporting name, then it should be capitalized. But in this case the official name is Draken, and not "(The) Dragon". Just for comparison, translating the name of the P-38 to Swedish would be "blixt(en)" not "Blixt(en)". If I translated fighter names into Swedish, I would also consider using the definite form, since this is how it's done with Swedish aicraft.

As for linkage, I think we can both agree that anyone who can master enough English to read the lead knows perfectly well what both kites and dragons are. They don't need wikilinkage to understand the connection. Neither of those articles provide any immidiatelely accessible clarity concerning the naming of this aicraft, the double meaning of the Swedish word drake and especially not the topic of fighter aircraft. They do, however, create rather pointless distractions.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I think a translation of the different names (not "terms") of SAAB aircraft is unnecessary to begin with! None of them have been official in English by SAAB anyway. If not anyone else remove them, I will. --Towpilot (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A translation of the meaning of the word drake is a service for the vast majority of readers who don't speak Swedish. As long as the article text doesn't insinuate that the translations are somehow official there is no point in removing them.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jane's all the Worlds Aircraft usually brings a translation in brackets of Swedish aircraft. In the 1977-78 issue there is a Saab 35 Draken article. I don't have this edition but I'm confident, that Jane's' translation is there. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading the old Jane's from the 1970s - all of them have given up translating "Draken". The headlines are: "SAAB 35 DRAKEN" and "SAAB 37 VIGGEN (THUNDERBOLT)". The newest Jane's has a "English name: Griffin" in the "SAAB JAS 39 GRIPEN" article, for comparison. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Any citation on LEX for Draken?

There are several coments in bibliography as well as a couple of videos (e.g. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs ) performing a high AoA manouver (some call it Swedish Cobra). It makes sence aerodynamicaly to suggest that the 80° section of the Double Delta acts like a LEX thus enabling controled flight in very high AoA. Additionaly the high leverage from the flaperons that are located well back could explain the rapid rate of turn demonstrated at these videos. This effect can also explainthe fact that the cobra manouver is short in duration and sharp only at the initial part. The LEX induced vortex reduces in intencity as the plane acts as a giant airbrake (very high AoA), therefore the lift of the main wing is reduced and the plane is basicaly at the limit of stall. The inherent stability of the plane causes the nose to dive and regain tha normal flying position.

Are there any objections to this theory? (it would be interesting to discuss..) Even more...are there any relative citations? (I cannot find any)

georgepehli (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

)

Airfields vs Airbases

Just to clarify: the swedish runways placed on roads were/are not solitary runways right smack in the middle of nowhere. Each such road-runway is an auxilary runway part of an airbase, complete with infrastructure such as command center, storage facilities, hangars, ammo dumps etc. As such teh article shall - for correctness sake - state that the Drakens were supposed to operate on these auxilary runways, part of airbases, not airfields.

For mroe information, read up on the swedish BAS60 and BAS90 systems. --J-Star (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I request that the translation should be reinserted, the Swedish noun "Drake" is singular and the noun "Draken" is the definite form of the same word. The only problem here is that an editor is not aware of Swedish morphology and grammar and therefore takes translation into his own hands. A literary translation should include the other language's definite article, for the english language that ought to be "the". The Swedish noun "Drake" has two possible meanings (source: Swedish Academy Dictionary (SAOB), D2072, Göteborg 2010 and Swedish Academy Dictionary (SAOB), D2075, Göteborg 2010), either it means the Swedish word for the mythological creature that translates to "Dragon" (complete translation has to include definite article, therefore "The Dragon") and the second meaning is the tethered cloth/paper aircraft; "Kite" (complete translation has to include definite article, therefore "The Kite"). Any other ambiguity in the Swedish language can be found going back to the the 16th century where "Drake" could refer to a male duckling (source: Fauna och flora, Uppsala 1906). Any other ambiguities are not related to the Swedish to English translation. It does not refer to the bird "Kite" , the Swedish name for that bird is "Glada"; using definite article "Gladan". Anyone saying that the definite article should not be kept in the translation should supply a source so we can then edit every translation here on Wikipedia.

Any word that has a definite article in Swedish ought to have the definite article preserved during translation unless any good source indicates otherwise. On "Saab 32 Lansen" = "The Lance" and "Saab 29 Tunnan" = "The Flying Barrel" Wikipedia editors has preserved the correct translation. I will not cave just because one editor do not want an exact translation, especially when no logical reason or source as to why has been given.

I understand that it is an easy mistake to overlook, but when using translation dictionaries they will translate from the normal form therefore a quick check on Google, Lexin, or any similar translation service will look like the definite article should not be translated, however, you should note that the translator has stripped the definite article from both words since it defaults to showing the normal form. This is especially true for nouns. NiklasBr (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the aircraft, not a dragon or a kite - it is written in the English language, not Swedish, so it is English language useage that is important here, not Swedish. All the engligh language sources I have seen translate Draken as Dragon - not The Dragon, otr The Kite.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed. NiklasBr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a cite where draken is translated as Dragon, * Peacock, Lindsay. "Saab Draken Variant Briefing". World Air Power Journal, Volume 17 Summer 1994. London:Aerospace Publishing. ISBN 1 874023 43 3. ISSN 0959-7050. p.116. - "...more familiarly known as the Draken (Dragon)" - later in the article, it refers to the Drakem and Drakens - showing normal english use.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that differs though: Folke Schimanski, New Scientist 1973 (No. 858) uses definite article on both "Lansen" and "Draken". So is NASA via their US Centennial Flight Commision (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Scandinavia/Aero63.htm). Surhone et al. in "Saab 35 Draken: Fighter Aircraft" (No print year, it is recent) are also referring to the plane as "The Kite" and "The Dragon" as well ass this Norwegian museum: http://www.luftfart.museum.no/Engelsk/Exhibitions/SAABDraken.htm. X-Plane (the simulator) uses "The Dragon" but that is not the best source, I know. However googling some more I have found out that I might have to yield and keep your version, SAAB omits the "The", as seen here: http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2004/041007_HUdraken.htm Any other sources I have are non-english and therefore more or less useless in this context.I have learned something today. Thank you. NiklasBr (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Niklas, your statement, "The only problem here is that an editor is not aware of Swedish morphology and grammar and therefore takes translation into his own hands", is incorrect, I actually am aware of the grammar, as the issue has been discussed several times on this article, and on several other Swedish fighter aircraft articles. This is actually a common dispute. What I have stated is is what several Swedish speakers in those discussions have stated. Using "the" is the hyper-correct literal form, but it's unnecessary in English, which I do speak fluently, and do understand its grammar very well. We are giving the English equivelant of the name, not it's woodenly literal translation, as "the" is very rarely used in names in English. I have never seen a published source covering Swedish aircraft ever translate the "the" in reporting the names of the aircraft, and those sources can be cited for the article. We can't assume that every wrtier and editor on the subject of military aircraft was ignorant of Swedish grammar, and only you know the correct form. They can be cited for the "translation" of the name in relation to the aircraft, as all we are doing is verifying it from a published reliable source, per WP policy. Verifiability, not "truth", is WP's standard. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So far you have not given me any source that dictates that the definite article should be omitted during translation. I will give you the benefit of doubt and not undo the edit yet, but so far you have shown very little knowledge. Can I ask you to actually show that knowledge to the table so we can settle this? Perhaps you can teach me something? NiklasBr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right that I have no direct knowledge of Swedish, but I have direct knowledge of translating non-English words into English as part of my college education. By itself, "draken" means "the kite" or "the dragon", and in certain contexts, the article would be written out in English. When translating names into English from non-English words, one follows English usage, which doesn't always include the gramatical article. (In some cases, we would add an article to a word that doens't have it in the original language, if the transaltion needs it.) If this were an WP article on Swedish vocabulary, we'd use the "the" in the translation. Since it is about an aircraft, we don't. I can cite several well-known aircraft books by knowledgeable aircraft authors, including several by Bill Gunston, that give the translation of the Swedish words without the article. Since this is an article about an aircraft, that is all that is needed. The problem is that none of these books translate "draken" as "kite", and only a few of the older ones, and one recent one, translate the word at all (as "dragon"). However, almost oll of them translate the other Swedish aircrft names, including "Gripen" and "Viggen", without the "the". There are footnotes in both those articles to cite the translation, one of which I believe I added. - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, kite is the article on WP about the flying toy, which is what you and others keep saying it refers to, but you keep reverting it to the Disambiguation page, which is unhelpful to the readers. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it because YOU told me that the english word "Kite" was ambiguous. I did it because you implied it was needed when deleting my contributions. Sorry if I offended you or whatever, I was only trying to soothe this personal editing vendetta of yours. NiklasBr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That was my explanation of why I needed a source on the definition of "draken" as "kite". The dictionary your provided answered that question, which is why I linked to kite, about the child's toy. I mentioned that it can also mean kite (bird) in the context of a name for an aircraft as an illustration that just as "draken" has two meanings, so "kite" can have two meanings. I'm sorry you misunderstood that, but I thought the fact I kept changing it would be enough explanation of which link was correct. Sorry! - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my tone in this discussion, but I have seen so many Wikipedia regulars/old-timers take advantage of their knowledge of the system to promote their own agenda. In my mind all I did was help the community by filling in a small gap in this article… And got deleted just because someone disagreed despite (what I considered) the obviousness of the translation. I was a bit passive-agressive, sorry about that. However, I feel I have some valid criticism regarding the edit deletion; please do not just justify your action with what is more or less a comment saying "because I say so". Why not just quote the source to begin with and/or explain using relevant knowledge. I am sure we all would have spent much less time and energy that way. NiklasBr (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing the kite link in my post directy above. You yourself said you had added the DAB link based on what I had said. I wasn't refering to the other issues at all, nor trying to justify any other action taken. We both should have stopped to discussthis after the first mutual revert, and we're fortunate some admin didn't happen by and block us both for edit warring. Anyway, we are discussing it now. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified performance specs

Specifications were in parts "slightly" optimistic (as is often the case in popular literature), so I modified the data based on Finnish performance reports. In fact, service ceiling and range are still probably much too high. Finnish sources report maximum altitude as 18 kilometres using zoom climb, and just 14.5 kilometres for service ceiling. Ferry range is reported as 1500 kilometres, but fuel configuration is not reported (external fuel or not) so I left it there. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, you are using an earlier version of the Laukkanen work; also, please find page numbers to go with the changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC),

Yeah, I forgot the page numbers. I'm not too good with refs. Is there a newer version? I'm only aware of 2006 edition, these books have pretty small print runs. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Number Built again

From the article i count 651, and someone has 52 going to Denmark, which makes 652. Any body have the real figures?--Petebutt (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)