Talk:Fictional military aircraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ka-58 Black Ghost
Further investigation is beginning to reveal that Ka-58 Black Ghost is not fictional,' merely planned and not yet built. For preliminary confirmation that this is true, see the citation below, where a slightly more detailed description is provided, as well as information that a hobby model has already started to be produced by the large Russian model company Zvezda (which means 'Star"). Dimesions are given (to scale). It also says that the model is made under the license of the Kamov company. I will try to find more evidence with citations to confirm that it is true, but in the meantime I would recommend deleting Ka-52 from the page's list.
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.47.192.170 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 |
Fictional military aircraft has been integrated by the Wikipedia Integration WikiProject |
Cwolfsheep 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tigers of Terra
Ted Nomura's comic book series Tigers of Terra, published by Antarctic Press, posits an alternate history with the divergence point being 1912. Many fictional military aircraft of World War II to the modern era -- including flying wing and disc-like aircraft designed but that never made it past prototype -- may be found therein. RahadyanS 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is a mess
This article is a mess, and there is no connection between these articles to justify merging them together. They belong in their respective works, not in a general mish-mash of disparate fictional universes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The Ace Combat and Yukikaze Sections are a total mess as well, so much as to be noexistant
[edit] F-302s??
not sure but shouldnt stargate SG-1 and atlantis F-302 be on the list somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.86.97 (talk • contribs)
Hello I was just wondering why the Switchblade form the movie I Spy(2002) is not present in either the discussion page or the article
- It is now, my friend. Eaglestorm 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merger?
I believe that the two pages should remain separate, Why?
- They are built/designed for completely different markets. Government & Civilians respectfuly.
- Military Aircraft are designed for fighting, bombing, surveying unlike most civilian planes.
- Military Aircraft are also used for transporting military personal, weapons and vehicles which might not other wise be able in civilian models.
- Lots of Pilots and Mechanics in the Military will be mad at you as well as CGI & Prop designers!
- While I know this is for Fictional Aircraft those rules should still apply as real Aircraft -- Awar 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Helix
The Helix is a fictional helicopter used by the chinese military in the computer game Command and Conquer Generals Zero Hour. Should it be included as it appears to only occur in this one game? Tasmarshall 15:21, 6 June 2006
[edit] Merger?
I vote for merging the two articles, as I see no fundamental difference. If Airwolf can be in this list, then so can the others. This article has a lot more structure and info as the other one though.
The criterion for being included or excluded might need to be made more explicit, personally, I would not expect something like those Simouns to be in here. There are a bazillion (militairy) fictional aircraft out there. And when does something stop being an aircraft and become a space ship. You could conveivably have Battlestar Galactica Vipers in here, of Star Wars X-wings or a Star Trek Bird-of-Prey. All are supposedly capable of atmospheric flight.
One suggestion could be "fictional aircraft based on real world (military) designs", still kind of vague, but it would keep out the Simouns, X-wings and Vipers. With such a restriction I could see a separate "fictional aircraft list". Adriaan Renting 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DesertStrike.jpg
Image:DesertStrike.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] F/A-37 Talon: funny range
In the article's specs for this fictitious aircraft, it stated: Range: 4,000 nm (4.0E-90 km). Now, according to the International System of Units, nm stands for nanometer, a measure of length equivalent to one millionth of a millimetre, or 1 x 10-9 meters. Thus, said aircraft would have a range of 4,000 x 10-9 = 4 x 10-6 meters, or about 4 thousandths of a millimeter. Some range! This blunder, strangely enough, has spread among several webpages on the subject. Unable to find the original source, I just deleted the range statement. --AVM (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- That would be 'nautical miles.' Herr Gruber (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
