Talk:Fastest propeller-driven aircraft

message: Please add to this article. FWIW Bzuk 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting this. I will make contributions as time allows.Silverchemist 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, should the title be "Fastest propeller-driven aircraft"?Silverchemist 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a start

message: The Tu-114 is listed as the fastest one, but the Tu-95 beats it at 920 km/h. Is this speed and unofficial/brochure one?
Diego bf109 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Turboprops

message: The picture of the XF-88B used in the aticle may be in violation of copyright. It is from a Boeing website, .  The is another picture available at  which should be free for use.Silverchemist 05:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of XF-88B

message: Before this pic disappears, it is interesting to note that the prop appears to be stationary and feathered, thus adding weight to the statement that the aircraft was primarily a jet.--John of Paris 09:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feathered propeller

message: I agree that my attempt at improvement of the first sentence wasn't much of one (if any,) but I still think it could be improved upon. How's:
:"The fastest propeller-driven aircraft are a notable set of airplanes due to the difficulties associated with attaining high speeds in aircraft driven primarily by propeller." ?
Maybe the first sentence shouldn't have stuff about limitations, but I somewhat feel it appropriate as a layman might not understand why a distinction should be made for prop planes. Marimvibe (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote the first sentence incorporating your ideas. How does it read now?Silverchemist (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Marimvibe (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." The current lead neither introduces or summarises the page, but jumps right in to exposition of the problems of proppeler-driven aircraft and high speeds, which properly should be in the article, but not the Lead in such detail. Also, the Lead needs to contain, in bold, the title of the article in the first part of the first line. We also need to make clear that we're dealing with records, not just someone's claim of an aircraft flying fast on an unverifiable occasion. Frankly, writing lead paragraphs is not my strong suit, so it might be good to ask for help at WT:AIR, as we have some very good copy writers in the Project. - BillCJ (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentance 

message: I don't want to offend anyone, and I haven't read too many of the refs, but this article reads (at times) like original research.  Some sentences, such as "These speeds seem unlikely given that the Lockheed XFV was fitted with a less powerful engine than it was designed for and had makeshift unretractable landing gear for horizontal take-off and landing..." and "is article presents the current record holders for several sub-classes of propeller-driven aircracft that hold recognized, documented speed records. Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) records are the basis for this article.[1] Other contenders and their claims are discussed, but only those made under controlled conditions and measured by outside observers."  I REALLY don't want to imply that the whole article is OR.  It doesn't seem to be.  But some of the conclusions seem to be drawn from data in references rather than relying upon references that present the judgment.  I think it is rude to slap an OR tag on an article which is mostly non-original, so I'll ask here. :) Protonk (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of article 

message: See the article. This aircraft probably deserves a mention. Cacetudo (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pray tell, why? It seems like a fine new prop-powered airplane, but its top speed would barely threaten a typical WW2 fighter, much less the actual records held by the Rare Bear or the Tu-114.--rcousine (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Pilatus PC-21? 

message: Interesting article. Would an open rotor powered commercial aircraft be a contender for this title should one reach production? Open rotors tend to be just glorified tuboprops so I don't see why it can't be classed as a propeller. If so should this be mentioned? 192.88.212.44 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Rotor 

message: The opening paragraph contains a reference to claims by some WWII pilots that propeller-driven aircraft occasionally exceeded the speed of sound. Since this was due to erroneous readouts from the pitot tubes and subsequent incorrect interpretations of TAS by the pilots, I think the comment should be removed. It's not merely the case that the claims cannot be verified; it's that they are, despite the honestly-held views of the pilots involved, demonstrably false. Unless someone wants to try a re-write of that sentence then - and without prejudice - it should probably be removed to save confusion.
Legend being what it is, these claims have gone from occasional claims by pilots to regular occurrences in popular culture! The truth is, they didn't happen at all.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/pitot.html Flanker235 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The flight by SQNLDR Martindale was in a calibrated instrumented Spitfire MK IX in tests carried out by the RAE so these speeds are verified by test equipment and a suitable authority.. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supersonic claims 

message: I added this aircraft some time ago but that section seems to have evolved into a series of running claims and counter claims. I did not say it was the fastest propeller aircraft of WWII. That was added later and is largely irrelevant, even if true. On that basis, there seems little point in the sentence which follows about it never seeing service. I propose deleting both parts on the basis that they provide no worthwhile material which could not be found in other parts of Wikipedia. I will allow one week from today for any objections. Flanker235 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermarine Spiteful 

message: The article shows a higher average speed for DeBona's cross-country flight than for Rare Bear's record.  Is the DeBona 4.4 hours right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModelA31 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed Records 

message: Substituted at 14:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: In a couple of places (and previous edits) there has been stuff about Las Vegas, New Mexico to clarify is it actually Las Vegas, New Mexico or is it Las Vegas, Nevada? Bravoechonovember1 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Vegas, New Mexico  

message: Hi there,
Came here looking for the fastest electrical aircraft, but there does net yet seem to be an entry on that yet. As mentioned in a talk section above, aircraft such as the Airbus E-Fan use ducted fans, so inclusion is a bit debatable, but I assume there are non-ducted electrically driven prop craft out there by now as well? Milliped (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrically driven aircraft. 

message: With a top speed of 825 km/hr (according to Wiki), it deserves at least a mention as the fastest propeller-driven aircraft currently in service.
It's certainly much faster than the Avanti which has been mentioned in the article as the fastest twin-engine turboprop.
Behrou (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Airbus A400M Atlas?