Talk:Military aircraft

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 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation: Aircraft

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

British Military Aircraft

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)[reply]

"Cargo Planes"

"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)[reply]

Paraffin fuel aircraft and tank-in-tank

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)[reply]

Split article

The combat aircraft section should be transferred to Combat aircraft, because not all military aircraft are combat aircraft. The German Wikipedia for example has a special article on combat aircraft (Kampfflugzeug)--Arado (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine as it is, the majority of military aircraft are combat aircraft so this article would be unbalanced of they were to be removed. I have more of a problem with Combat aircraft which just repeats what is here but could do with expanding the topic into the history of combat aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article with material for tagged expansions

Compassionate727 has kindly pointed out that there is a draft article by an inactive user at User:Mikkow/Roles (aircraft) that may have some useful information for expanding the tagged sections. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]