Talk:List of jet aircraft of World War II

Start
The scope of this list should probably be stated. It seems to be any jet aircraft designed during World War II whether they flew during the war, after the war, or not at all. In which case, it will eventually consist mostly of various German "paper projects" --Rlandmann 21:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I created this list because like many technology developments including the jet engine, telephone, TV, and computers, the national of the country that is credited with the first is often in the nation where the school system is based. A list like this allows people to see that these developments were happening near simultaneously in a number of countries. In the case of this particular invention it helps to deflate claims that if only the Germans had got their wonder weapons deployed in sufficient numbers, they would have been able to alter the course of the war. The truth is that the allies were only months behind and like with tank production, they could have outproduced the Germans in jet aircraft to make up for any qualitative diffrence.

I think to be an "jet aircraft" it must have a physical existence before VJ day. But perhaps there could be a section under each nation for paper projects. That does not mean that paper projects have to be in the "Category:World War II country jet aircraft" Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japan
I removed these entries because they are about Rocket not Jet aircraft.

also as it was not a jet aircraft. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mitsubishi J8M1 "Shusui" Rocket Intercepter
 * Mitsubishi J8M2 "Shusui" Model 21 Rocket Intercepter
 * Mitsubishi J8M3 "Shusui" Model 22 Rocket Intercepter
 * Mitsubishi Ki-200"Shusui" Rocket Intercepter
 * Rikugun Kokukosho/Mitsubishi Ki-202"Shusui-kai" Rocket Intercepter
 * Mizuno "Shinryu" Type 1 Suicide Attack Rocket plane Glider
 * Mizuno "Sinryu" Type 2 Rocket plane Intercepter
 * Kyushu J7W2 "Shinden-kai" Intercepter

The list of U.S. jets needs correction; the XP-59/P-59 were -59As: the P-59 was a cancelled prop type. --squadfifteen

I'd say there should be a "paper projects" category, too. And I'd include the J7W, because it was intended to be fitted with an Ne20. --squadfifteen

CC-2
Did the CC-2 actually have a turbojet? I seem to recall it was a piston ducted fan --squadfifteen

CC.2 had a thermojet, which used the ducted fan as the compressor for a relatively primitive jet engine. The Dark 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

V-1
I del V1 Flying Bomb as a pilotless bomb, not an aircraft in the usual sense.

Replaced with Selbstopfer, the piloted version of the V-1. (Note: I did not do the original deletion) The Dark 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This needs consistency. If the pilotless V1 does not count as jet aircraft, the Gloster Meteor should not be referred to as "first jet-to-jet kill". I furter don't understand why the Reichenberg (and Yokosuka MXY7 Model 22) are not in green. They were operational but didn't see combat, just like P80 and Ryan FR. Sansmalrst (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither the Reichenberg nor the Yokosuka were ever used operationally. They were built, and then not used. Unless you have a source that suggests they were actually assigned to an operational unit, then it is correct as it stands. As for first "jet-to-jet kill" - Nationalism aside, the V-1 was powered by a jet engine, and as a machine capable of flight, is an aircraft by definition.NiD.29 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the V-1 is a jet-engine powered aircraft and should be in this list. The V-1 is included in the Wikipedia article on "jet aircraft", and Wikipedia should be consistent in itself. This issue could simply be solved by renaming the list to "List of _manned_ jet aircraft of World War II".
 * Regarding "operational": The information in the article itself is inconsistent, no new references needed. The article defines the green-highlighted items as "operational during the war". The article itself further states that the Yokosuka was "deployed but not used" and that the Reichenberg was "ready for operations [but] not used".
 * There is a larger point here that this article is wildly non-NPOV, but I'll make that point in a separate post. Sansmalrst (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on the NPOV - all of the original NPOV material is gone. It is nothing more than a list of those aircraft actually built.NiD.29 03:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Types
I added the Northrop XF-79; I'd also add the DH.108 (sometimes called Swallow), built to E/45, if I knew when development began. I'm inclined to add the Yak & MiG projects based on captured German work, too, because they were (arguably) begun before war's end (if not by the Soviets). Trekphiler 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Germany
The Me163 isn't a jet... it's a rocket. Dunno why that was left in here.

--Evil.Merlin 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Aircraft
I removed the Me163 again today. Please remember that this is for jet aircraft only, not rockets. The Dark 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A rocket aircraft is a jet aircraft by definition as it is propelled by jet propulsion. See e.g. wikipedia article on "jet aircraft" ('Most people use the term 'jet aircraft' to denote gas turbine based airbreathing jet engines, but rockets and scramjets are both also propelled by jet propulsion.'), see also "jet engine" and "jet propulsion".
 * So... I have the impression that adding Me 163, Ba 349 etc. back in would be hugely contentious? Maybe the article should be renamed to "List of air-breathing jet aircraft of World War II"... Sansmalrst (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The scientific definition regarding the narrowest possible understanding of their means of motivation is irrelevant as a jet engine and a rocket motor are commonly understood to be different technologies when dealing with aviation terminology. Rockets carry their own oxidizer and expel that along with the fuel it burns. A jet engine on the other hand takes its oxygen from the surrounding air which it mixes with fuel.
 * A better idea would be to look at List of rocket aircraft which is linked from this page already - the focus of this page is necessary to exclude modern jets so as to focus on just the earliest jets (VJ day being a convenient cutoff - most other possible cutoffs require WP:OR or are wildly contentious) - adding the rockets from this time period by necessity also adds a lot of aircraft that used rockets for takeoff (their short running time has largely limited rockets to being temporary speed boosters), however as there isn't likely a complete list of such types a lot of OR is likely to occur - when an aircraft was first trialled or cleared for rockets is not easy to find, even for US types, and worse for Russian or German rocket assisted aircraft. (ps - please sign your talk page posts with four tildas at the end.)NiD.29 04:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no:
 * WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a reflection on (unreferenced and hence unsupported) common understanding. Consider that anywhere else on WP rocket propulsion is considered to be a form of jet propulsion (see entry 'rocket engine', 'jet engine', 'jet aircraft', 'rocket aircraft', 'jet assisted take off' etc.). Do you have a supporting reference for the claim that rocket engines are not commonly understood to be jet engines?
 * To be clear, I absolutely understand the conceptual difference between rocket engines and air-breathing jet engines. I even agree that the two could be separated. But then, this list here should be named "air-breathing jet aircraft of WW2" for precision.
 * Nonetheless, the arbitrary exclusion of rocket engines is exactly why the article violates WP:NPOV. Consider that Ryan FR, MiG I-250, Su-5 and XBDT-2 are classified as jets here because of a "narrow understanding as to their means of motivation", to use your words. It is a technicality and common people would not classify these aircraft as jets due to the propeller on the nose. Hence, this list uses an arbitrary definition of "jet" that excludes rocket engines and includes thermo-jets and mixed propulsion, precisely in order to shape the outcome (you write so yourself) and not because it is in any way a useful or common selection. And that is WP:NPOV. Just to reflect: is there any source that supports this choice?
 * This list already violates WP:OR. What should have been done is to use existing and available sources for a classification of "jet aircraft" and "aircraft of ww2". What has been done instead is to come up with new and arbitrary definitions for both - this is interesting and fun, but it also constitutes original research and thus violates WP:OR. You yourself write that the cutoff dates etc. are contentious, yet no supporting reference for the choice is given.
 * The WP:OR issue can be very nicely illustrated by your own example of a definition of rocket-powered aircraft. There is a very clear conceptual difference between rocket-powered aircraft and one that uses rockets as boost or take-off assistance (RATO). Generally speaking, you can strap a rocket to pretty much any airframe. That doesn't make it a rocket aircraft any more than sitting in a cockpit makes me a pilot. E.g. nobody would classify the Me 323 as rocket aircraft although RATO was available. Similarly, there is a clear conceptual difference between a (piston-engine powered) testbed for jet engines, and an actual jet aircraft. This distinction - what a jet aircraft is, what a rocket aircraft is, what aircraft should be considered as a WWII aircraft etc. - is research. It should be left to experts and professionals and obtained through references, and not be decided as part of an article, as was done here. This is what WP:OR is about.
 * Sorry for failing to sign earlier. Writing this was fun, no offense intended. All I am saying really is just that this list has serious issues. Please also consider what I wrote in "Focus" further down regarding exclusion of the XB-43 and SO.6000. Great aircraft, but not WW2. Sansmalrst (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Not relevant - we are talking about aviation, which makes the distinction, not physics, which only discusses forces at their most general. On the jet engine page "In common parlance" limits it to the definition primarily used here.
 * 2. Excessively wordy - we don't need that much precision as the literature already supports the current name and no-one would be able to find the page without redirects. List of jet and rocket aircraft of World War II works better but I am not convinced adding rockets is the right thing to do.
 * 3. How is the exclusion of rocket engines arbitrary and NPOV? Every single list of Wikipedia has boundaries, and rockets and jets are two different technologies to power an aircraft, just as piston engines are a third category, and gliders a forth. There is an entire list devoted to rocket aircraft. This is part of (hopefully) a series of pages to cover jet aircraft, and is limited for both a WW-2 focus (to fit in with other pages on WW2), and to keep it manageable. A full list of jet aircraft would be very large and would need to be broken up. Inclusion isn't arbitrary, and indeed if you check the references on each type, they back up that 1. they were powered by an engine that was described as a jet engine, and 2. that construction or use occurred during WW.2, so no OR required. I tried to find references specific for each type to justify inclusion, and there are other references that provide most of the list but they tend to be somewhat generic and thus lacking in details such as dates and numbers built - check the further reading if you'd like.
 * 4. The WW-2 date is the only possible choice that isn't contentious largely because it is the cutoff used by a lot of books, and other WP pages follow. If one were to follow the Fighters page, they go by generations, but that generates no end of argument between the fanbois trying to reclassify their pet airplanes, and without a reference in sight to justify any of it. Other dates might work but would neither fit, and would require more justification for such a date.
 * 5. I was merely illustrating the difficulty in applying an overly broad definition for "jet". Those included on the page now are described regularly in books as being jets. Personally I don't see much difference between the thrust produced by a turbocharged engine (particularly at altitude, especially when they sometimes burn fuel in the exhaust) and a Motorjet but am following the literature in including the latter but not the former.
 * No worries, missing types can be added. XB-43 development began in 1944 (hence its inclusion), and the Sud-Ouest SO.6000 Triton began development during the war and both flew (unlike the excluded projects) - not sure if metal was cut during the war - the SO.6000 is unlikely while the XB-43 is probable - however I don't have type specific references for those, other than online sources so I cannot be sure and have no argument about removing at least the Triton pending references. Other types that flew post war but were developed during the war and are missing could be added instead - there is a possibility some of the Argentine designs began during WW-2, the Canberra's development also began in 1944, although the configuration used dates to late 1945. Excluding them also excludes the Henschel Hs 132 and Messerschmitt P.1101 though as they never flew, however their absence is likely to generate more controversy than the inclusion of the XB-43. The exclusion of many German projects has to do with the fact they never made it to metal, and we don't have as much information on similar British and American paper projects for balance, even with recent books on that topic.NiD.29 22:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (I originally wrote a longer comment here, but it appears to me that I should separate some things out, so I redacted it somewhat.)
 * Well, look at how "jet", "turbine" and "piston engine" are conceptually related:
 * "Jet propulsion" is a principle, not a technology. During jet propulsion, hot expanding gas pushes the plane forward. This is different from propeller propulsion, where air is pushed backwards and the reactionary force propels the plane forward. But these are principles, not technologies. The respective technologies are jet engines and airscrews/propellers.
 * Different technologies exist to generate hot expanding gas.
 * A rocket combusts at least two fuels, one of them being the oxidizer. You have already described how that works, I believe. Because rocket technology propels the aircraft through hot, expanding gas, it is a jet engine. This is not my opinion. All of WP treats it that way.
 * Alternatively, you can combust fuel and use air as oxidizer. But you need to compress the air first. You can do this with different technologies: with a piston-engine-powered compressor (motorjet), or a turbine-powered compressor (turbojet). Note: a jet engine can be a turbine or a piston engine. (In fact, ramjets and pulsejets rely on the speed of the airplane to compress the air.)
 * The airscrew, on the other hand, must somehow be turned by a rotary machine. Just like with jet engines, this can be a piston-engine, a super- or turbocharged piston engine, or a turbine (turboprop). Such engines are never jet engines because the main propulsion comes from the movement of the airscrew, although some thrust might come from the exhaust.
 * What I want to drive home is that rocket engines and turbojet engines are different technologies, but they are both jet engines. Likewise, piston engines can power jet engines in the form of a motorjet.
 * Today, there are almost no rocket-powered or motorjet-powered aircraft. So most aircraft are either clearly propeller-driven, or turbojets. I guess that is why people ("common parlance") often use "jet engine" to mean "turbojet engine". Nonetheless a rocket engine is a jet engine, just like the engines slung under the wings of our holiday planes.
 * Ok... that was technical... but it's not the exclusion of rockets as such that violates WP:NPOV, it's the bias used in assembling the list:
 * You say the article lists jet aircraft based on a common parlance understanding as given in the article jet engine. I'd prefer a technical definition, but ok, I can see the rationale. The many rocket-powered aircraft of that era are visually clearly distinct from what people would call a "jet aircraft"; further, the number of rocket-powered experimental aircraft might overpower the list.
 * But then, the article makes a 180-degree turn by including mixed-power motorjet aircraft - apparently because technically, they are jet-powered. However, since they are not turbine-powered, they don't meet the common parlance criteria for jets either, nor would they be commonly identified as jets due to the propeller. So they shouldn't be in the list, but are. This suggests to me that the common parlance criterium is reduced to "air-breathing", omitting the "turbine-powered".
 * Such selective criteria lead to the hilarious inclusion of Su-5 and MiG I-250 in this list. Both look nothing like jets, endure 3 (Su-5) or 10 (MiG I-250) minutes under jet power, were built 13 times altogether and first flew within two months of war's end. One really has to stretch definitions of both "jet aircraft" and "aircraft of WW2" to include them. On the other hand, the Me 163, certainly looking nothing like a conventional aircraft, endurance of 6-8 minutes, 370 planes built and, most of all, used in combat, ticks all the boxes. But it is excluded because of some qualitative argument that here unlike everywhere else in WP, "jet engine" means "turbojet engine".
 * Do you see how this is warped?
 * Now, on to the VJ day criterium. On the face of it, that makes sense. WW2 stopped on 15 August 1945, and if we consider the Hs 132 and Me P.1101 as WW2 jet aircraft although they were not completed, then why not stipulate that anything under construction in a wider sense ("metal was cut") at VJ day is a WW2 airplane.
 * However, considering that jet aircraft had no influence whatsoever in the Pacific theatre, the only difference between VE and VJ day as cutoff is really that it adds construction starts and first prototype flights for Allied planes, none of which were built to see service in WW2. There is a good chance that in the end, this list will be mostly populated by aircraft with a first flight after VJ day, candidates being Yak-15, Su-9, B-45, XB-46, XB-48, EF-131, Gloster E.1/44, and so on. All allied planes which had nothing to do with WW2, if you think about it, but had prototype production start before a certain date. Although the Allies had three more months to field more aircraft, they didn't. The P80 never flew sorties in the Pacific and only was in Italy for a few months before the war without flying sorties, and the Ryan FR was somehow on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific without flying sorties - I mean, the type was later declared unfit for aircraft carriers. Yet this list lists both as operational, but omits the operational Me 163 and V-1 completely (more on that in a minute).
 * Have I made clear now how in this article, hard technical arguments are set up to include the most possible number of Allied aircraft in this list, yet qualitative arguments are invoked to exclude Axis aircraft?
 * If you are still not convinced, let me try one last time:
 * The V-1 flying bomb looks like and is an air-breathing jet aircraft. Thousands were operational and used. But it is excluded from this list because it is unmanned. Somehow, that makes it not an aircraft - but the V-1 is still a fully qualified "jet" when it comes to crediting the Gloster Meteor with the first jet-to-jet kill. I don't mean to strip the Meteor of its merits, but how being unmanned can cost the V-1 its aircraft status but still constitute an air-to-air victory leaves me speechless. If anything, it should be the other way round: An unmanned aircraft should still be an aircraft - in fact because there is no pilot on board, trimming and keeping course pose additional challenges. On the other hand, unmanned aircraft can't dodge, dogfight, retreat, dive, etc., so shooting own a V-1 should not be considered more of an air victory than shooting down a tugged target. Sansmalrst (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The V-1 flying bomb looks like and is an air-breathing jet aircraft. Thousands were operational and used. But it is excluded from this list because it is unmanned. Somehow, that makes it not an aircraft - but the V-1 is still a fully qualified "jet" when it comes to crediting the Gloster Meteor with the first jet-to-jet kill. I don't mean to strip the Meteor of its merits, but how being unmanned can cost the V-1 its aircraft status but still constitute an air-to-air victory leaves me speechless. If anything, it should be the other way round: An unmanned aircraft should still be an aircraft - in fact because there is no pilot on board, trimming and keeping course pose additional challenges. On the other hand, unmanned aircraft can't dodge, dogfight, retreat, dive, etc., so shooting own a V-1 should not be considered more of an air victory than shooting down a tugged target. Sansmalrst (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

List order
Shouldn't the list of countries be in some sort of order? Maybe alphabetical? IJB TA 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to split it among Allies/Axis, and then alphabetically, but that does sound like a good idea. The Dark 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave the list as known to have flown.
Since most of the planes listed never flown, I think they should be removed.

The list should be inclusive/exclusive of jet powered planes that flew during WW2. Not after --Evil.Merlin 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aircraft that were intended for use during the war (Ta 183, Hs 132, various Japanese projects) should be included. Just becuase it didn't fly doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still in total disagreement. the Germans had literally dozens of jet aircraft in the planing and prototype stages in the last part of World War 2. Just Messerschmitt alone had nearly a dozen jet aircraft in the works at the end of the war. If this is the case, we need to get the Ryan Fireball and several other jets that both the Americans and British were working on on the list. We really should just limit it to operational and advanced prototype stages else it may grow a little out of control. --Evil.Merlin 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the horde of "napkinwaffe" designs don't need to be mentioned; however those for which metal was cut do. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And revisiting this again (ftw, I'm formerly Aerobird), the cancelled/incomplete types should not be included, and also types that flew after the end of the war should be excluded as well (and I've boldly made it so). Otherwise, the article will quickly collect the usual Luftwaffe-über-Allies "if they'd only had six more months!" cruft. (As a note, most of the napkinwaffe would never had flown, as the engines for them simply didn't work...) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian Jets
The Yak-15's development didn't start till after VE Day, but was in the design stages during the fight against Japan. The MiG-9's development started in 1945 as well. The MiG I-250 was developed in December of 1944 with first flights in early March.

Adding all three to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil Merlin (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm going to add the Su-5 as well. First flight was 6 April 1945, but design started around the same (and was similar to) the I-250. The Dark 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch, forgot all about the Su-5! --Evil.Merlin 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten the Russians entirely! I remembered their rocket plane, but not the thermojets until I saw the I-250 on the list. The Dark 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

please fix
entered service as a kamikaze aircraft or suicide missile. Jet version built, but went not operational.

the last part should be something like

but never became operational. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. :) I might adopt this page as a project, it needs a lot of work. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Link redirects etc
There are several reasons links to redirects are better than inline redirected links - (if you wish to discuss this further we can take it to a user:talk page or to WT:AVIATION or WT:AIR cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) if/when the particular variant is split to a new page (not unlikely given the number of pages I have seen that lump a whole bunch of barely related aircraft together and that need to be split to their own pages), it is easier to find and correct than having to hunt through a great many links that all point direct at the main page but with local changes to the text.
 * 2) if the visible text, as on listboxes is meaningless (such as with model numbers), it makes no sense to make the link direct to the parent page unless it applied to all types included on that page, as it is then impossible to tell what aircraft the link is about.
 * 3) the page ends up being larger than necessary, although that is more an issue on longer lists than here (at least for now).
 * 4) it makes lists more difficult to scan quickly when reading the markup.

Focus
As the 80% complete Horten Ho 229 was already included, I have expanded the list to include any aircraft that reached a significant degree of development during the war (ie something resembling an aircraft existed before VE/VJ day even if it never flew.) Paper projects and napkinwaffe are still verboten as the vast majority were unworkable and could never have flown. Alkso thinking about making it one table so they can be more closely compared.NiD.29 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I am wondering if engine testbeds should be included - so far I am aware of Gotha Go 145A, Heinkel He 118, Vickers Wellington and Avro Lancaster all being used as engine testbeds, though I am sure there are others that were used during the war.NiD.29 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ju 88, He 111 and Do 17, among others, were also used as engine testbeds. But I think including those would be misleading. Sansmalrst (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that there are two serious issues with this article:
 * First, it was written to show that (quoting the first author) "these developments were happening near simultaneously in a number of countries" and to "deflate claims that if only the Germans had got their wonder weapons deployed in sufficient numbers, they would have been able to alter the course of the war." While I don't disagree with the agenda itself (German end-war paper projects are overstated and the Allies were catching up in jet engine technology), this violates WP:NPOV. In particular, I wonder whether the operationalisation of "jet aircraft of WWII" follows an agenda:
 * A few allied designs never flying anywhere near to VE or VJ day, nor ever intended for WWII, are included, e.g. the XB-43 and Sud-Oueste Triton. Looks a bit like a desperate effort to compensate for Ar 234 and get France in. Yet Axis planes at similar construction stages at VE day are excluded, e.g. He 343. To put this into perspective: the main achievement of jet aircraft was the engine, not the airframe. That's why pretty much all planes listed here were finished before engines were available. The XB-43 used the GE J35, which did not run until 1946. The Sud-Oueste Triton flew first with a German Jumo 004. Scnr: Is this the way in which the article intends to show that Allied jet development was almost on par? ;)
 * Although rocket propulsion is jet propulsion, pure rocket-propelled and operational aircraft are excluded for no particular reason. As is the unmanned V-1. Yet mixed-power aircraft (propeller-powered (thermo)jet-assisted) such as Su-5, MiG I-250, Ryan FR and XBTD-2 are included.
 * Second, a list of WW2 jet aircraft could be arrived at though sources, e.g. Jim Winchester ("Aircraft of WW2", Amber books, 2012) or Kenneth Munson ("Aircraft of WW2", Doubleday, 1972), but because the article tries to make a point, it synthesises. It should be considered whether this violates WP:OR.

Sansmalrst (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Original Research ?
This article is original research. Just to be sure we are on the same page what that means: of course WP allows us to "research" a subject by reading up on it before we write about it. But what we are not supposed to do is conduct our own analysis, come to our own conclusions, and synthesise (WP:OR). This article does all three. To illustrate my point, let's assume we wanted to compile a list of "rocket-propelled aircraft of ww2" (I'm not really proposing to do that - it's just an example). Generally speaking, we can do this in two ways: It might be less fun, and more boring, but WP:OR actually means that we must follow the second approach. On one hand, that's sad because we lose control. Maybe we both think the Ju 248 should be in the list, but both Winchester and Munson didn't include it. In that case, tough luck. On the other hand, discussions with fanboys are cut short because they can either find a reference for their claim, or the discussion is over.
 * 1) Either we create the list ourselves by browsing Wikipedia etc. and defining our own interpretation of "rocket aircraft" and "aircraft of WW2". We might find different opinions what constitutes a "rocket aircraft". Maybe one person would argue that only those qualify where rocket propulsion is the primary motivating force, including e.g. the He 112. Maybe another person would argue that rocket aircraft have specifically been designed for a rocket engine, which excludes the He 112. Yet another person might argue that RATO-capability also makes rocket aircraft. Similarly, different opinions are possible when an aircraft belongs to WW2. One person might say, if it flew before VJ day, which includes the Ba 349. Another person might say, if it was operational before VJ day, which excludes the Ba 249. A third person might say, if metal was cut and the aircraft was built in the context of WW2, which includes the Ju 248. It is very difficult to argue which one of these distinctions is best, and as you say yourself, it would be tedious to deal with the fanbois who want to make their point.
 * 2) Alternatively, we can rely on other people's research on this matter. For example, we could get books by Jim Winchester ("Aircraft of WW2", Amber books, 2012) and Kenneth Munson ("Aircraft of WW2", Doubleday, 1972) from a library and see what rocket aircraft they list. Maybe they don't list the Ju 248. These are published authors on the subject of WW2 aircraft, so they probably know more about historical classification than we do (certainly more than I do).

Now you might say that here we are only creating a list. And if we listed something trivial, e.g. "aircraft where metal is cut before VJ day", then I would agree that it's ok to compile the list ourselves. But what is needed here is much more complicated - a criterium what aircraft are "WW2 aircraft" and what aren't. It's easy to decide for operational airplanes, but what about the others? There is no rule to say the criterium has to be framed by date and construction status. For example, the argument could be made that the McDonnell FD Phantom, although it flew before VE day, is not a WW2 airplane because it was always intended for postwar use, whereas the Hs 132 is a WW2 plane although it was not even completed when the war ended. If you think that's a convoluted argument, would you call the F-16 a Vietnam war airplane because the prototype flew before that war ended, but never took part in it?

I guess my point is that this article tries to reinvent the wheel when it could and should rely on existing publications and the expertise of experts (not me). The question what WW2 aircraft are have been answered by others, e.g. the authors mentioned above. I haven't critically analysed it, but I think we will find that historians and aviation experts use the term "ww2 aircraft" if a conceptual relation to the war exists, which is certainly satisfied by, but not exclusive to, operational use. And yes, that probably means that many German desperation/emergency programs that did not even fly are considered WW2 planes, some allied planes that might even have flown before VE day aren't. That is because the German planes were made for WW2, whereas some US planes really were already built for the next war. This is also why the Sud-Oueste Triton is by no stretch of the imagination a WW2 plane. Maybe it was planned before VE day and maybe even metal was cut. But every pore of this remarkable plane shouts "post-war". "Let's plan in secret so we can rebuild French aviation industry once the Germans are defeated." This is not the definition of a WW2-plane, but of a post-war plane. (I believe the plane is off the list now... I'm merely bringing this up again to make a point.) On the other hand, the Ta 183 might not even have been built, but it was intended for WW2, so it was more of a a WW2 plane than the Sud-Ouest 6000. (Again, I'm not trying to get it on this list... just trying to make a point.) Sansmalrst (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Split the list? (Air-breathing and rocket)
As mentioned many times above, rockets are a type of jet engine when definitions are strictly applied, but rockets and jets are usually thought of as seperate. This is causing inconsistency. For example the MXY-7 Ohka is included, but the Me 163 Komet is not.

I therefore propose a compromise: Split the list. Instead of there simply being an "Aircraft" section, there would be seperate sections for air-breathing jet aircraft, and rocket-powered or non-air-breathing jet aircraft, and probably a bit of text at the top explaining why they are seperate.

Any objections? SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. I'd probably to suggest splitting into three lists: jets, rockets, and mixed propulsion.
 * 87.115.150.37 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the (Very) delayed response
 * I agree. I'm not aware of any mixed jet/rocket planes, so I assume mixed reffers to mixed prop/jet. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been over a year and I have no objections, so I'm doing this. I have a long train journey tomorrow anyway.
 * If this gets reverted, I am escalating this to the dispute resolution noticeboards. This argument has been going on-and-off for 17 years.


 * Edit: OK this has taken significantly longer than expected, but I'm working on it!


 * Edit 2: And I no longer have free time. S\*\*\*. I'll work on this when I get some back, but don't hold your breath. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)