Talk:Military aircraft

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: British Military Aircraft

message: "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)
thread_title: "Cargo Planes"

message: 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)
thread_title: Paraffin fuel aircraft and tank-in-tank

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Split article  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Draft article with material for tagged expansions