Jump to content

Talk:List of carrier-based aircraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some thoughts about organization options for this list

[edit]

After spending some time making additions to this list, I wonder what might be the most effective way to present this information. The present list structure appears to attempt three levels of organization: 1st chronological by decade, 2nd chronological by conflict involving carrier aviation, and 3rd by nationality of the aircraft carrier.

Chronology by decade appears to be an artificial and inconvenient grouping because conflicts of major importance to carrier aviation (like the second world war and the Vietnam conflict) spanned more than one decade. It might be more meaningful to adjust the chronological groupings into periods of conflict causing significant changes and intervening periods. Grouping by nationality of the aircraft carrier may cause dual listing of aircraft used by more than one nationality (like British use of the American F4F Wildcat/Martlet, F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair, and TBF Avenger). Chronology by conflict may cause dual listing of aircraft used in more than one conflict (like the F4U Corsair in World War II and the Korean conflict) or the A-1 Skyraider used in Korea and Vietnam).

When I could locate a reference, I have provided a date for each aircraft. My choice of date may not be the best one. I selected the date of first operational use -- typically a few years after first flight of the prototype, and several months after beginning production of the first approved model. This date may be difficult to establish, and practices among different nations may require some assumptions. In some cases (like the F4U Corsair) operational use began from land bases because of doubts remaining after years of testing about suitability of the model for intended use on carriers. Some apparently excellent aircraft (like the Aichi B7A) never operated from carriers because carriers were no longer available when it became operational.

The lifespan of the aircraft might be a more useful time construct (perhaps in the form of one or more bar graphs like that below -- or a more refined template). 

    A5M   36 37 38 39 40 41 42
    A6M                  41 42 43 44 45
    B5N      37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
    B6N                        43 44 45
    B7A                           44 45
    D1A   36 37 38 39 40 41
    D3A            39 40 41 42 43 44
    D4Y                     42 43 44 45

The end date for such a lifespan should be open to discussion. Options might include end date of production, end date of operational use from carriers, or end date of combat operations. The tendency of combat aircraft to transition from use aboard carriers through combat use from land bases to use for training might make it difficult to establish operational end dates.

I have also added a production figure when I could find one. The relative quantities are of more interest than the absolute numbers except in the case of prototypes or very low production reflecting a change which became obsolete or impractical during the development phase. Few such aircraft would have an operational start date. A potential ambiguity arises translating production quantities into service aboard carriers of different nationalities, or between aircraft used on carriers versus land bases.

The issue of operation from land bases vs carriers is a difficult one. The Gladiator and Hurricane were fairly clearly modifications of conventional land-based fighters for use aboard carriers. The Seafire is a somewhat cloudier group including some similar conversions and other redesigned aircraft built with different wings and landing gear. (Conversely, the F-4 Phantom was a carrier aircraft where design modifications were made for use from convention land bases.) I wonder if assembly of later Japanese aircraft like the B7A might have been simplified to eliminate some complexities of carrier operation features once the probability of such use was realized. Thewellman (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the per-conflict idea of organization, and I'm not against double listing of aircraft used by two or more nations. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the quantities add much value they are all available in the related articles. Dates might not always be clear, the Sea Hurricane for example first went into service as a catapault launched not carrier based aircraft. Not sure why only some helios are listed you either list all carrier based helicopters or none at all. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think just a straight list by date of its first entry into service, broken down by decade only, is the way to go for this page. It's already getting quite complicated, with some aircrft appearing sevarl times for the same nation. However, there is no reason that we can't also have other pages with more detailed lists, and even tables. This is done with the List of aircraft carriers series. - BilCat (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it eliminates the petty squabbling, it allows a better comparison between types, and it is easier to prevent errors creeping in. Full name of aircraft, date of first flight, service period (this might be problematic), national origin and operators with nothing about decades and eras - was that when it entered service, when it was used mainly, or the entire time it was in use? not clear right now. The entire list is not going to be overly large even if all aircraft (which by definition includes helicopters, autogyros and blimps) are included and by having a single table makes it more than just another category page, which it is now.NiD.29 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some clarification about inclusion criteria is probably warranted as well - one of the photos at the start of the page is of a seaplane that wasn't flown from aircraft carriers, but operated from seaplane tenders, which dropped it into th water and recovered it from the water with a crane - not quite carrier based which implies taking off and landing from the ship itself, unless we want the definition to include all shipborne aircraft, regardless of the means of operation.
We should probably come to some agreement on the scope of this list before we go too far. In general, helicopeters aren't considered "carrier-based aircraft" becasue they can be based on other types of ships, and blimps aren't usually included either. Basically, fixed-wing aircraft are in view here. Secondly, we can't list every nation that has operated each type, as the list would certainly get cumbersome again. If an aircraft variant has a separate article, and is made by another nation, then I can see listing it separately. The Harrier variants are such cases, as they do have separate articles. Perhaps removing the national sub-heading would make this more clear, and then we could include national origin in each line. Also, I think we should focus this list on production types, as there are scores of non-production types, and the list would again be too unwieldy. I'm opposed to tables in general, and don't think we need to use one here at all. In most cases, I find them too complex for easy editing, but that's a personal opinion. Finally, we need to standardize the way we format each line, though I don't have a preference for how. - BilCat (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the AH-1 SuperCobra doing in this list?

[edit]

Isn't the list supposed to include only fixed wing aircrafts? Hyper Shinchan (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operators?

[edit]

If the list isn't for operators then why is Australia listed - which was strictly an operator? NiD.29 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't now. - BilCat (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
because I removed it. NiD.29 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new section...

[edit]
Pondering adding a section for those aircraft only tested or used briefly for a single operation from carriers, and not used regularly, such as (off the top of my head):
I am sure there are enough others to warrant their own section.NiD.29 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - didn't know about the Islander (and still looking for pics without success). There's an Auster photo in the commons, and one of a Cessna O-1 Bird Dog during the Vietnam retreat - what was the occasion for the Islander being on a carrier?NiD.29 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a Bell P-39 Airacobra that was modified with a tailhook to test nosewheel operations from a carrier...NiD.29 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Islander on HMS Hermes at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200886.html MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! More to come...NiD.29 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting is not working on the tables

[edit]

Sorting is not working correctly on the tables. Zginder 2013-11-27T20:46:01Z

Fixed by removing the two line header - doesn't look as good but sorting at least works now. Thanks for pointing it out.NiD.29 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merged tables

[edit]

I have reformatted the tables per the WP:AVILIST style guide. This has allowed merging into a single table which is now fully sortable on manufacturer, country, date, etc. The list of craft which temporarily played on deck did not fit the stated criteria, being neither *designed* for the job nor *based* on board, and was frankly trivial as a list (some individual events excepted), so I deleted it. My apologies for not filling in all the cells, but I only have one life. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on production numbers in lists

[edit]

There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. You are invited to join in. Please do, as an editor has been attempting to add them here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of carrier-based aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1940 aircraft in pre WWW 2 list??

[edit]

Table merge

[edit]

The tables which I merged back in 2016 have been separated again since. I propose to re-merge them. In the mean time the Aviation WikiProject has revisited its consensus on numbers built and now says they should be included. I propose to use the current "general" format as specified in the WP:AVILIST style guide:

Type Country Class Role Date Status No. Notes

Note that the current ordering by eras can be recreated, simply by sorting the merged table on the Date column. The Class column defaults to things like propeller, jet, rotorcraft, UAV. It may by local consensus be made more fine-grained.

Are there any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do - I thought I had merged them as well because the breaks were arbitrary, and they prevented useful comparisons. They also ensured that the formatting was not consistent over the length of the page. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Status values will have to be normalised per WP:AVILIST, which is broadly speaking project, prototype, production or (for types not manufactured in quantity) operational. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Done. Any minor problems, please fix or report here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary carrier operations by non-carrier aircraft

[edit]

The article currently has a section for a Temporary carrier operations by non-carrier aircraft. There is also a separate article for the List of non-carrier aircraft flown from aircraft carriers. They appear as near identical in content as makes no difference, just formatted a little differently. Should we:

  1. Maintain two near-identical lists, as now.
  2. Merge the two lists into a a fully-merged list here.
  3. Merge this list into the other article.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just hasn't been added yet (no claims have been made for completeness). Most of the entries were on a reference by reference basis instead of taking someone else's list. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them together (in case that is not obvious).Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2. I don't believe "non-carrier aircraft flown from aircraft carriers" are discussed as a set (and I would argue that "non-carrier aircraft" is a temporary designation - either the type progresses to deployment (ignoring on-offs such as B-25s or interim solutions - e.g. Lockheed P-2 Neptune (which may qualify as a "carrier aircraft" - as it was actually deployed)). Aircraft operated from carriers are discussed as a set, and including trials / cancelled aircraft on this list is plausible. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a listing of aircraft never developed for carrier use, but used at least once to or from a carrier (often only once). Including them into the main part of the article made little sense as they aren't carrier aircraft and lacked the specialized modifications (heavier undercarriage, folding wings, arresting and catapulting gear, and improved corrosion control etc) which would then generate confusion and arguments, and in most cases were generally poorly known footnotes to their own type histories, but it did make sense to make a list of them as it is a rarely discussed aspect of naval aviation. With few exceptions these don't generally fall into the trials or cancelled categories, and many were in support of temporary operational exigencies. Also, these entries required information supporting their inclusion that would either mess up the formatting of the main listing or be too numerous to list with end notes - where that information would be buried and insufficiently accessible. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NiD.29: In order to achieve Option 2, a full merge of all lists, the Occasion column would have to go and its content shortened and moved to the Notes column. That would make it difficult to group this sub-list using any sort criterion currently defined. One option could be to adopt a "Temporary" or similar value for the Role or Status column, another (tried earlier) to delete it from here after all and maintain the separate list article for it (i.e. Option 3). I think I would initially go for a "Temporary" value in the Status column and see how that works out. Does that seem reasonable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shortened the "occasion" column as much as I could, but agree it would probably have to go elsewhere for consistency - perhaps it will have to go into end notes after all. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, that's a pretty clear consensus. I'll take it fairly slowly, in case objectors appear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Occasion

[edit]

As mentioned above, the Occasion entries seem overlong for this kind of list - it is a list of aircraft types, not a list of occasions. Should the names of the ships concerned be removed? If it is necessary to provide such naval detail, then perhaps an independent article with these and further details might after all be more appropriate than keeping them here? It might even be presented more informatively as a list of ships or in some less rigid format, perhaps on a historical basis or discussing the reasons why these planes were operated. Sorry to keep dipping to and fro like this, but I don't want to have a lot of somebody's work undone any more than necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the non-carrier aircraft uses are specific to certain occasions then I'd be wary of removing context. landing a small aircraft on a really big aircraft being less impressive than landing a big aircraft on a small carrier but it's hard to know if you don't know the vessel in question. it's also possible the incident isn't covered on the aircraft page or the vessel page. <!-- hiding the "excess" text --> might be an option. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. It's why I was reluctant to just delete stuff. But does this list really benefit from those details, or would they find a better home elsewhere? We don't want to open the door here to potted histories of every type listed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question of whether aircraft built before aircraft carriers existed and used in the development of aircraft carriers are "non carrier" aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the early trials aircraft were simply normal land planes, but most were specifically modified, such as the Ship's Pup and Ship's Strutter - with floatation gear, quick release components and landing vanes. Some of the early trials aircraft can probably be moved to the main list, while others (mostly the later ones) seem to have been little more than stunts - however when only one or two was ever used from a ship out of a production batch of thousands, it is hard to argue that it is really a carrier aircraft, especially when there wasn't a recognized variant to list on the type's page. - NiD.29 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters

[edit]

As most helicopters can land or be based on a carrier do we need a list? MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting question. perhaps only the specifically navalised ones (Wasp but not Scout). Or perhaps there's a list of naval helicopters we could point to instead? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naval helicopters are usually subject to more stringent anti-corrosion efforts than land-based helicopters, and there is a recognized category of helicopters designed for ship-board operation. I doubt a list of every helicopter that has ever landed on a ship would be useful though. - NiD.29 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some naval helicopters like the Lynx as far as I known have never been based on a carrier or as the lead says "regularly operated from aircraft carriers". Perhaps we should remove them unless we have some evidence that they have been carrier-based. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

Can someone genius enough to rearrange the table list into country alphabetical order rather than the aircraft manufacturer 36.85.1.87 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're in desktop mode, the list can be reordered by pressing the triangle symbols next to each column. Voila! (If you're not able to use desktop mode, sorry. You'll have to get a consensus to agree to reorder the default to be by country, and I'm opposed to reordering by country). BilCat (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_carrier-based_aircraft&oldid=1203628480"