Talk:Parasite aircraft

message: Many of the last entries in the list of parasite "aircraft" are unmanned drones / missiles. 
Q-2C Firebee, fire practice target drone 
D-21, reconnaissance drone
Pegasus, satellite launcher
X-43 Hyper-X, research drone
White Knight/X-37, research drone
I wonder whether it is a good idea to include non-manned aircraft/drones/research model aircraft as the line between them and missiles is small (e.g. the Luftwaffe's Mistral programme, or the USSR's MiG 19 based air launched anti-shipping missiles).  If unmanned aircraft/research models/drones/largeish missiles are to be included as parasite aircraft there are very many dropped unmanned research "aircraft" not included at present - basically only post war US types are in the list above.  Some agreement as to boundaries is probably also a good idea.  Winstonwolfe 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmanned parasites

message: Further to the above, I suggest boundary issues as to when drones/missiles count as aircraft are impossible to negotiate if we let in small remote controlled targets like the Firebee, satellite launching rockets like the Pegasus and research models like the X-43 as "parasite aircraft".  
I suggest all non manned "aircraft" should be deleted from the list of parasite aircraft.  That would be:  
 
DC-130/Q-2C Firebee, C-130 based drone 
Lockheed D-21/M-21, for high-speed reconnaissance, based upon the SR-71 Blackbird (1963) 
L-1011/Pegasus, for satellite launches (1990) 
B-52/X-43 Hyper-X, a hypersonic research test article
 
White Knight/X-37, for DARPA's spaceplane project
If you disagree, post reasons under :-). Winstonwolfe 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remote controlled aircraft differ from missiles so I would consider retaining those particularly if the carrier was to recover the "drone". I would though leave one or two uses of aircraft as carriers to launch rockets as examples of where the carrier concept can also go. Is the list supposed to be examples or exhaustive. GraemeLeggett 09:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is an aircraft not an aircraft 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: What's the origin of the term?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Over ten years to reply to a question must be some sort of record. If you read the sources on this page you will see the term parasite fighter being used a long time before wikipedia was even thought of so unlikely to be made up by editors here. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most 'parasites' are carried by the host. Hence the term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Who you callin' a parasite?

message: The image :File:MM Short Mayo Composite scan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:MM Short Mayo Composite scan.jpg

message: Wouldn't manned missles such as the Baka bomb qualify as parasitic aircraft even if they were on one-way suicide missions? Bachcell (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baka bomb 

message: What exactly is a parasite aircraft? Some questions:
;Is any air-launched craft a parasite or must it be able to return to the mothership for recapture? Do we have a reference for that?
:I would expect that some parasites cannot return. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Think this applies only to a couple of American airships? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I would expect the manned types to be no different. For a craft to be a parasite its role must be secondary to the carrier's (whereas in a composite it is the other way round). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of parasite 

message: Much of this article discusses composite aircraft types comprising mother ship and parasites or jockeys, e.g. the whole section on Examples of parasitic aircraft combinations. Should this material be moved across to the composite aircraft article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composite content 

message: According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747-8 the "747 AAC" was an aircraft Boeing considered making that would carry 10 "microfighters". 98.127.119.21 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And... ? - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And... that's information that's directly related to the article? That, geez, I don't know, maybe someone would be willing to expand upon and include in the article? I've brought very useful and relevant information here that will enable someone to improve the article. Do you expect me to do all the work? 98.127.119.21 (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect you do more than simply dump a little info on a talk page and expect someone else to do the hard work for you.If someone wants todo it, they will, but it may take awhile. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

text: "Do you expect me to do all the work?" Why, do you expect us to? This is the encyclopedia that anyone, even you, can edit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Strictly speaking, a USAF idea farmed out to Boeing to see if might work.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And to Lockheed, if I remember rightly. But these were just projects, no aircraft was ever built. To date, the article covers only those actually flown, so there is a notability gap to close before we can address this vapourware. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing proposed craft