Talk:Jet

A couple of factual corrections:

A: The fighter jet pictured isn't an F-16. It's an F-15:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf21b.htm

The F-16 is a substantially different aircraft. Note the single tail and "throat" air intake:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od11.htm

B: The "Vietnam War Era Bomber" isn't really Vietnam era. The aircraft pictured is a B-1B Lancer. While the "original" B-1A did enter the prototype stage shortly after the Vietnam war, flying for the first time in late 1974, the B1-B pictured differs in quite a number of significant details and didn't enter production until 1986.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b6/b6-6.htm

Further the B1-B entered service strictly as a "Nuclear" bomber, outfitted to carry SRAMs or air-launched cruise missles. They were retired from this role in 1992, and refitted to carry conventional bombs starting in 1993.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm

Outfitted as such the B-1 now fills the same role that the conventional weapon equipped B-52s did in Vietnam, but it's not accurate to describe it as a "Vietnam-Era" bomber.
 * Feel free to make the changes to the page as necessary. Clearly, the author of the original (current) content was misinformed, especially since the information is based solely on video images from Trek. (P.S. --~ ) --Alan del Beccio 23:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Suggest Merger
I suggest we merge this with the article Airplane, then modify that article, maybe consider retitling the whole thing to fixed-wing aircraft. Not all airplanes are propeller driven, and a "jet" also refers to the engine which propels the jet aircraft. &mdash; Vince47 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "fixed-wing aircraft"? What's wrong with "airplane"? There arenpt any autogyros in Trek, so, it's not like "airplane" is unnecessarily narrow. --TribbleFurSuit 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge current content, and if need be create a new article talking about jet engines. Maybe, probably not. "Fixed wing aircraft" would be better, while there are no autogyros there ARE helicopters, hot-air balloons, and dirigibles at the very least. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge, per Cobra's reasons.--31dot 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I also support the merge. I don't support moving [Airplane] anywhere else. None of the craft you mentioned are fixed-wing. And I was all wrong about autogyros in the first place, after all: that's not fixed-wing after all, I don't know what the name of the thing I was thinking of is, bit it's not an airplane and it's not in Trek anyway. So we don't need an article that's inclusive of both airplanes and something else that's fixed-wing but not an airplane. "Fixed-wing" as far as I know hasn't ever been used in canon, so, why contrive an unecessarily pedantic title that's overly slanted toward a real-world POV? And before anybody argues that Glider should also be merged to the article that would formerly be known as Airplane, let me be the first to say No! Keep Airplane and Glider in separate articles, and don't merge any of that into a "Fixed-wing" article. Until "Fixed-wing" shows up in canon, we don't need an article for it. Even if there's already some vanishing reference somewhere which Alan might helpfully grep out of his script, it still would warrant, IMO, a vanishingly small article that's separate from Airplane or Glider. --TribbleFurSuit 01:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)