Talk:First-generation jet fighter

Comments

I'm holding off on further editing or linking this page until I can get a stronger feel that I can actually cite some of these statements. As has been discussed on the Fighter aircraft page, the whole concept of the generations may be original research/synthesis or marketing jibba jabba (i.e. unreliable source). I'll get back to it when I've done a little more poking around.

This article might need to be renamed.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

what about turboprops

Which are a type of jet engine. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Shark was turboprop powered. It was a rejected hybrid power follow-on to the Fireball. Turboprops aren't really suited to fighters since the big advantage is in efficiency and not performance.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

P-59 Airacomet

Why isn't the P-59 Airacomet included? -- Donald Albury 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of planes that could be included, and feel free to add it. These are examples, not a list. The P-59 might be worth adding as a comment as well simply because it showed that jet power did not automatically produce a superior aircraft.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also notable as the first US Jet fighter. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Me-163 'Komet'

Where is the Komet? It's probably the most famous of the rocket-propelled aircraft and was definitely one of the first. Or, is there another article for rocket craft?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a fighter, clearly, but it's not really a jet aircraft in the usual sense. Rocket-powered aircraft exists, and the 163 is very briefly covered there. Rocket powered fighters are not something that's seen much use and probably doesn't need its own article. The XP-79 was proposed as a rocket fighter, but was tested (and was a miserable failure) as a jet fighter. The 163 (and things like the X-1) could be covered here as contemporaries, design inspiration, etc, but even as the primary author I'm afraid this article has massive WP:NOR issues. I mostly wrote it because 4th has an article and it seems a little out of place to not have one for each.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The P-80 was used in WW2...

... although it's true that it did NOT see combat. AFAIK, four P-80As were sent to Italy in the last months of the war in Europe (I need to find the source in my book "archive" to cite it). So if we stick to this fact, what's said of the P-80 is not 100% correct. Is it worth modifying that? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Argentinian Jet fighters

Hi all, it's good to see that the Pulqui II was considered (rightly, I'd say!) notable enough to be included in this article. However, its predecessor (the Pulqui I) should also be included because of the following reasons:

• it flew several years before the Pulqui II, hence it's an example of the early "1st Gen" jet fighters;
• it was the first jet fighter designed in Latin America (the Pulqui II was the 2nd);
• with its development, Argentina became the 5th country to develop and produce an indigenous jet fighter (albeit it was only one prototype).

Hence, unless there is reasonable, fundamented opposition, I'll include the Pulqui I as another notable example of the "early" 1st generation jet fighters.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly notable in its own right and "1st generation" would be its appropriate place, except for one thing – it never entered operational service. The term "jet fighter generation" properly applies only to fighter aircraft that achieved initial operational capability (IOC) in squadron service. (This is also the reason why a previously existing section on "technology demonstrators" was removed as inappropriate.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

When I put the article together, I originally kicked around the Pulqui I in the first section, but the Airacomet was a better example of the "0th" generation of jet fighters (i.e. the ones that weren't very good), and was a rather later design. Probably best to work it into the "prototypes" section and not into any of the actual lists. SDY (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Word miss use

i think that this sentance should be change: "The United States and the United Kingdom also had jet fighters operational before the end of the war." As the word operational in this context means was in service in numbers with the respective air forces as the United states only had prototypes regardless of position in the world (reguarding the P-80). it should be "just the united kingdom had a operational jet fighter at the end of the war" as the P-80 shooting star (production model) was not in service until after the surrender of japan which was the end of WWII. Marscmd (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)