Talk:List of jet aircraft of World War II

message: The scope of this list should probably be stated. It seems to be any jet aircraft designed during World War II whether they flew during the war, after the war, or not at all. In which case, it will eventually consist mostly of various German "paper projects" --Rlandmann 21:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: I removed these entries because they are about Rocket not Jet aircraft.
* Mitsubishi J8M1 "Shusui" Rocket Intercepter
* Mitsubishi J8M2 "Shusui" Model 21 Rocket Intercepter
* Mitsubishi J8M3 "Shusui" Model 22 Rocket Intercepter
* Mitsubishi Ki-200"Shusui" Rocket Intercepter
* Rikugun Kokukosho/Mitsubishi Ki-202"Shusui-kai" Rocket Intercepter  
* Mizuno "Shinryu" Type 1 Suicide Attack Rocket plane Glider
* Mizuno "Sinryu" Type 2 Rocket plane Intercepter
also 
*Kyushu J7W2 "Shinden-kai" Intercepter
as it was not a jet aircraft.
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: Did the CC-2 actually have a turbojet?  I seem to recall it was a piston ducted fan  --squadfifteen
CC.2 had a thermojet, which used the ducted fan as the compressor for a relatively primitive jet engine. The Dark 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC-2 

message: I added the Northrop XF-79; I'd also add the DH.108 (sometimes called Swallow), built to E/45, if I knew when development began. I'm inclined to add the Yak & MiG projects based on captured German work, too, because they were (arguably) begun before war's end (if not by the Soviets).  Trekphiler 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Types

message: The Me163 isn't a jet... it's a rocket. Dunno why that was left in here.
--Evil.Merlin 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: Shouldn't the list of countries be in some sort of order? Maybe alphabetical? IJB TA 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to split it among Allies/Axis, and then alphabetically, but that does sound like a good idea. The Dark 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List order 

message: Since most of the planes listed never flown, I think they should be removed.
The list should be inclusive/exclusive of jet powered planes that flew during WW2. Not after --Evil.Merlin 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aircraft that were intended for use during the war (Ta 183, Hs 132, various Japanese projects) should be included. Just becuase it didn't fly doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still in total disagreement. the Germans had literally dozens of jet aircraft in the planing and prototype stages in the last part of World War 2. Just Messerschmitt alone had nearly a dozen jet aircraft in the works at the end of the war. If this is the case, we need to get the Ryan Fireball and several other jets that both the Americans and British were working on on the list. We really should just limit it to operational and advanced prototype stages else it may grow a little out of control. --Evil.Merlin 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the horde of "napkinwaffe" designs don't need to be mentioned; however those for which metal was cut do. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And revisiting this again (ftw, I'm formerly Aerobird), the cancelled/incomplete types should not be included, and also types that flew after the end of the war should be excluded as well (and I've boldly made it so). Otherwise, the article will quickly collect the usual Luftwaffe-über-Allies "if they'd only had six more months!" cruft. (As a note, most of the napkinwaffe would never had flown, as the engines for them simply didn't work...) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we should leave the list as known to have flown. 

message: The Yak-15's development didn't start till after VE Day, but was in the design stages during the fight against Japan.
The MiG-9's development started in 1945 as well.
The MiG I-250 was developed in December of 1944 with first flights in early March.
Adding all three to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil Merlin (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add the Su-5 as well.  First flight was 6 April 1945, but design started around the same (and was similar to) the I-250. The Dark 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch, forgot all about the Su-5! --Evil.Merlin 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had forgotten the Russians entirely!  I remembered their rocket plane, but not the thermojets until I saw the I-250 on the list. The Dark 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Jets 

message: entered service as a kamikaze aircraft or suicide missile. Jet version built, but went not operational.
the last part should be something like
but never became operational.
207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done. :) I might adopt this page as a project, it needs a lot of work. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  please fix 

message: There are several reasons links to redirects are better than inline redirected links - 
#if/when the particular variant is split to a new page (not unlikely given the number of pages I have seen that lump a whole bunch of barely related aircraft together and that need to be split to their own pages), it is easier to find and correct than having to hunt through a great many links that all point direct at the main page but with local changes to the text.
#if the visible text, as on listboxes is meaningless (such as with model numbers), it makes no sense to make the link direct to the parent page unless it applied to all types included on that page, as it is then impossible to tell what aircraft the link is about.
#the page ends up being larger than necessary, although that is more an issue on longer lists than here (at least for now).
#it makes lists more difficult to scan quickly when reading the markup.
(if you wish to discuss this further we can take it to a user:talk page or to WT:AVIATION or WT:AIR
cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link redirects etc 

message: Also am looking for references for some of the Axis types - I don't have a lot on them and the Heinkels in particular seem to be poorly covered when it comes to books available online. I would prefer the references to be as specific as possible (ie about that particular aircraft) but am not having much luck, even in a general way.NiD.29 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This article is original research. Just to be sure we are on the same page what that means: of course WP allows us to "research" a subject by reading up on it before we write about it. But what we are not supposed to do is conduct our own analysis, come to our own conclusions, and synthesise (WP:OR). This article does all three.
To illustrate my point, let's assume we wanted to compile a list of "rocket-propelled aircraft of ww2" (I'm not really proposing to do that - it's just an example). Generally speaking, we can do this in two ways:
#Either we create the list ourselves by browsing Wikipedia etc. and defining our own interpretation of "rocket aircraft" and "aircraft of WW2". We might find different opinions what constitutes a "rocket aircraft". Maybe one person would argue that only those qualify where rocket propulsion is the primary motivating force, including e.g. the He 112. Maybe another person would argue that rocket aircraft have specifically been designed for a rocket engine, which excludes the He 112. Yet another person might argue that RATO-capability also makes rocket aircraft. Similarly, different opinions are possible when an aircraft belongs to WW2. One person might say, if it flew before VJ day, which includes the Ba 349. Another person might say, if it was operational before VJ day, which excludes the Ba 249. A third person might say, if metal was cut and the aircraft was built in the context of WW2, which includes the Ju 248. It is very difficult to argue which one of these distinctions is best, and as you say yourself, it would be tedious to deal with the fanbois who want to make their point.
#Alternatively, we can rely on other people's research on this matter. For example, we could get books by Jim Winchester ("Aircraft of WW2", Amber books, 2012) and Kenneth Munson ("Aircraft of WW2", Doubleday, 1972) from a library and see what rocket aircraft they list. Maybe they don't list the Ju 248. These are published authors on the subject of WW2 aircraft, so they probably know more about historical classification than we do (certainly more than I do).
It might be less fun, and more boring, but WP:OR actually means that we must follow the second approach. On one hand, that's sad because we lose control. Maybe we both think the Ju 248 should be in the list, but both Winchester and Munson didn't include it. In that case, tough luck. On the other hand, discussions with fanboys are cut short because they can either find a reference for their claim, or the discussion is over.
Now you might say that here we are only creating a list. And if we listed something trivial, e.g. "aircraft where metal is cut before VJ day", then I would agree that it's ok to compile the list ourselves. But what is needed here is much more complicated - a criterium what aircraft are "WW2 aircraft" and what aren't. It's easy to decide for operational airplanes, but what about the others? There is no rule to say the criterium has to be framed by date and construction status. For example, the argument could be made that the McDonnell FD Phantom, although it flew before VE day, is not a WW2 airplane because it was always intended for postwar use, whereas the Hs 132 is a WW2 plane although it was not even completed when the war ended. If you think that's a convoluted argument, would you call the F-16 a Vietnam war airplane because the prototype flew before that war ended, but never took part in it?
I guess my point is that this article tries to reinvent the wheel when it could and should rely on existing publications and the expertise of experts (not me). The question what WW2 aircraft are have been answered by others, e.g. the authors mentioned above. I haven't critically analysed it, but I think we will find that historians and aviation experts use the term "ww2 aircraft" if a conceptual relation to the war exists, which is certainly satisfied by, but not exclusive to, operational use. And yes, that probably means that many German desperation/emergency programs that did not even fly are considered WW2 planes, some allied planes that might even have flown before VE day aren't. That is because the German planes were made for WW2, whereas some US planes really were already built for the next war. This is also why the Sud-Oueste Triton is by no stretch of the imagination a WW2 plane. Maybe it was planned before VE day and maybe even metal was cut. But every pore of this remarkable plane shouts "post-war". "Let's plan in secret so we can rebuild French aviation industry once the Germans are defeated." This is not the definition of a WW2-plane, but of a post-war plane. (I believe the plane is off the list now... I'm merely bringing this up again to make a point.) On the other hand, the Ta 183 might not even have been built, but it was intended for WW2, so it was more of a a WW2 plane than the Sud-Ouest 6000. (Again, I'm not trying to get it on this list... just trying to make a point.) Sansmalrst (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research ?