Talk:Saab 35 Draken/Archive 1

Survivors list should be adressed
As mentioned in a previous comment, I suggest this section is moved to a sub page and vastly expanded. Partly because I'm no fan of long lists on a main Wiki page but mostly because the list can be vastly expanded. There are lots and lots of preserved Drakens around the world, in Sweden alone there are no less than 39 (known) aircraft! Certainly a subject worth exploring further. Per80 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

An additional displayed Draken
There is a Draken on display at the Mannaminne exhibition in Nordingrå, Sweden. There's even a picture on Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_J-35_Draken_at_Mannaminne.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.11.179 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no less than 39(!) known preserved Drakens in Sweden alone and several more around the world besides from those few mentioned in the list. Definately a subject worth expanding. Per80 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How many crashed?
How many of the Draken crashed? RGDS Alexmcfire


 * Counting all air forces I get 141 crashes killing 34 pilots. I'm not sure yet if that includes the only civilian crash so far in the states were the pilot survived. --Towpilot 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Number built?
Number built? According to Saab information papers 604 aircraft were constructed. The article says 615. What is the source?
 * I've changed this to 644 and cited the book Saab commissioned as its official history. The text reads (pg 55): "In all, 644 Drakens were built, 52 being sold to the Danish Air force. Finland, in addition to urchasing a number of Swedish-built 35Bs, also produced 12 of the aircraft at its own Valmet plant." Akradecki 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That comes to 652. I counted 651 with 51 going to Denmark!--Petebutt (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

First supersonic
The J35 was the first European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability.

removed this as the English Electric Lightning was 8 years earlier.

8 years? Now you're being a little too optimistic. The EE Lightning prototype flew in 1954, the 35A Draken in 1955 (the SAAB 210 mini-Draken flew in 1952 though) but aircraft actually fitted for combat were seeing operational service in 1959 in both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time Britain wasn't part of Europe. It only became part of Europe when it joined the EEC in 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Europe is a continent not an economic bloc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4784:1B00:64B9:17D8:CF4B:6CB7 (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the necro but i want to clarify some things. The Saab 35 does achieve the title of the first European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability "to enter service".


 * The first production variant of the EE Lightning (the F.1) entered service with the "Air Fighting Development Squadron" in May 1960 (which isn't really a true combat squadron), later joining the combat squadron No. 74 Squadron RAF on July 11 1960 (if english Wikipedia is to be trusted).


 * The first J35A entered service with Bråvalla Wing on March 8 1960. Thus entering service before the F.1 by about 2 months.


 * Preproduction variants of both aircraft were service-trialed before 1960 but since pre-production aircraft only saw "service" in small numbers (three P.1B Lightnings to "Air Fighting Development Squadron" on December 23 1959; one J35A1 to Försökscentralen in August 1958) neither aircraft really entered true service in 1959.--Blockhaj (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's original research. We need to cite reliable published sources that state this claim. BilCat (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Name

 * I have heard Mr Erik Bratt, the Chief Designer of the entire SAAB 35 projekt, in person, confirm that the word "Draken" is referring to the shape of a kite, and not to the mythical animal "Dragon"! Alltough, the fact that the word in Swedish do have a double meaning, he said, gave it "An Edge"!


 * Also, the Swedish Air Force designation system of airplanes always have a space between the letter and the number, like in "J 35A". It is not correct to write "J35A"! There are no exepctions! A dash doesn't count as space, i.e. J-35 is also incorrect! --Towpilot 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the Kite that the name refers to is the toy kite, or the bird kite? The hyperlink currently goes to the toy, I'm not sure whether it should be to the other one or not. --grsing


 * I am pretty sure that the reference is to the toy kite. MoRsE 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct MoRsE! It's a reference to the shape of a "simple geometric kite"!--Towpilot 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A trivia is that Erik Bratt, during a seminar on the Draken, casually and wittingly mentions that "it is not every day one's wife gets an aircraft named after her". Mrs. Bratt was not in the audience and I'm not sure she would have appreciated it. T96 grh 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Erik Bratt, she's actually the one who cracked that joke herself. He was talking about it the same time he confirmed the real meaning of the name, as mentioned above, and I think it might be in his own autobiography "Silvervingar" as well. Any which way, it's still a good story :-) --Towpilot 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Supersonic capability
Draken was NOT capable of Mach 2.0. Not even close, the intake design prevents it. J-35F was capable of about Mach 1.6. D might have been somewhat faster, but not Mach 2.--Mikoyan21 11:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just verified the specs against two different sources. Both cite 2125 km/h at 11,000 m which is Mach 2. What's your reference? A fixed intake does not automatically preclude Mach 2 performance because the aerodynamic effects of adjacent airframe components (e.g. nose cone) can provide good pressure recovery. F-16 is certainly Mach 2 capable with a fixed intake. - Emt147 Burninate!  16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Finnish Air Force stated numerous times that top speed of Draken (they had models B, C and F/S) was about Mach 1.6. Finnish MiG pilots had Mach 2 acceleration as a part of their initiation ritual - this was because MiG was only Finnish plane capable of achieving that speed (ie. Draken was not). Yes, I've also seen it claimed numerous times that Draken was capable of Mach 2. There are several possibilities: one is that Swedes measured ground speed from a plane which was in strong jet stream; other was that they had specificially modified Draken capable of breaking Mach 2 barrier, for promotional purposes. Caveat here is that D was lighter than F, so it may have been slightly faster; however, the aerodynamics were nearly identical so I remain doubtful. --Mikoyan21 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your personal experience but again, all of my sources cite Mach 2 as the top speed. It's certainly credible for an extremely low aspect ratio (1.8) aircraft with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.70. Were Finnish Drakens limited to Mach 1.6 by thrust or shockwave hitting the compressor/other airflow-related issues? - Emt147 Burninate!  22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always seen intake design mentioned as a limiting factor. As for thrust, Finnish Drakens obviously had same engines as Swedish ones. I admit I'm not expert at all on supersonic aerodynamics, but it is notoriously difficult for aircraft with fixed inlets to achieve Mach 2 (F-16 inlet is of course completely different from Draken inlets). Almost all Draken's contemporaries (MiG-21, Mirage, Starfighter, Lightning etc) had variable inlets. Operationally, the difference is of course not that big because fighters almost never use their top speed in operational use, but it may have been major point in marketing in the '60s, so I wouldn't wonder if Saab for example, built a test plane with modified inlets for breaking Mach 2 barrier. This is of course complete speculation. I wonder if people at NTPS would answer if I asked them, they still operate Drakens.--Mikoyan21 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The F-104 inlets are fixed, not variable. MiG-21 and EE Lightning have no choice but to use a variable inlet because the inlet is at the very front of the aircraft. As I mentioned above, with inlets moved further back, the adjacent aircraft structure can be designed to set up the correct airflow and shockwaves. I can only speculate about the Draken but I know for a fact this is how the F-16 gets away with a fixed inlet and Mach 2 performance. I've never seen anything other than Mach 2 written as the Draken top speed and it's not implausible so honestly I never questioned it. I'd be curious what you can find. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was under impression that those spiked cones in F-104 inlets were indeed movable. At any rate, Draken does not have this feature. My problem with this is that if Draken was capable of Mach 2, you'd expect FAF kinda mention it.--Mikoyan21 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly an unsatisfying situation, but all the sources concur (or they all cite the same incorrect primary source... no way to tell). - Emt147 Burninate!  17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reference I could find here (most of my library is in my other apartment) is Bill Gunston's "The History of Aviation" (Militärflygets historia), it mentions:
 * "Later versions carried a heavy bomb load and reconnaissance equipment and still reached Mach 2 (without external bomb loads or drop tanks).
 * When you mention it, I also remember having read in Finnish sources that the MiG-21 was the only Mach 2 -capable aircraft in Finland. At the time I didn't reflect over it, but now it makes me curious. The two things that comes to mind is that either the Finns deliberately stated that they did not perform that good at all, saving the little extra as a bad surprise for an eventual enemy, I know they have done so in other cases, the other thing is that they perhaps they did something with the engines in Finland. Perhaps they made some modifications that affected their top speed? This suggestions are however speculations. -MoRsΞ 20:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

From the book, The Saab-Scania Story, ISBN 91-7886-014-8, page 54: "Equipped with the completely new Rolls-Royce RB Series 300 Avon engine with an afterburner, the 35D became the first Draken to reach Mach 2. The combined D/F prototype made its first flight on 27 December 1960." Akradecki 17:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SAABs own history fact sheet says 2+ Mach at >40000ft, presumably referring to the D. It is worth noting that the intake design was slightly revised for the D, suggesting that they had engine airflow related issues that became apparent when attempting to pursue the SwAF's standing M 1.8+ (sustained) requirement. With that in mind and the fact that it also had maximum wet thrust increased to some 80kN (T/W ratio of >0.7 under good circumstances) with the RM6C, the D model ultimately becoming a proper M 2.0 capable aircraft doesn't seem implausible at all. Add to that the 1.7 aspect ratio, the highly swept compound delta (80/57) etc. and it would actually seem a bit strange for it not to be able to reach M 2.0. I am curious about the FAF assessment that has been relayed by Mikoyan21, did they fly Drakens that corresponded to SwAF D units in terms of hardware and base aerodynamics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.216.65 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop mixing different variants of the Draken when Mach numbers are discussed. The J35 A B & C versions with the weaker RM6B (or Avon 200) engine did mach 1.8 out of the factory. Anything from the J35D onwards had the RM6C (Avon 300) and could do mach 2. The finish example seems flawed because all draken versions are bunched up not to mention that finland had alot of used aircraft in the inventory where the engines might have lost some thrust with the years. 85.228.58.221 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The speed was max Mach 1.6 in peace time to limit engine and frame wear. In war mode without limitations, the speed was above Mach 2. 130.241.141.153 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Image removal
Is there a good reason for removal of the image? Ballista 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The source image was deleted from Wikipedia. Don't know why (not on my watchlist) but I would guess incorrect/missing tags and/or copyvio. The same deal on the Viggen page. - Emt147 Burninate!  04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahah - that's a good 'nuff reason! - how are press photos from SAAB themselves? - I have a few (some of Draken, too, I think - how would they be affected by copyright? - Ballista 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you know for certain they are promotional photographs, cite author/souce (if know) and tag with . Applying the Fair Use clause to photos of modern aircraft is iffy since it is at least theoretically possible for someone to take a non-copyrighted photo of the subject. - Emt147  Burninate!  21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added one of my own photos of one of the Desert Drakens. If you download the hi-res version, you'll notice an Irish Shamrock on the tail...the head of NTPS is Irish, and he's the primary pilot of this aircraft. Akradecki 17:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Saab 210
The Saab 210 Draken (correct name by Saab!) is not a variant of Saab 35 Draken per se! It's a completely different airplane that offcourse should be in the history but not in a list of the Saab 35 variants!--Towpilot 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok,new version about variants a little bit better but, the correct name is still "Saab 210 Draken"! --Towpilot 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The number 210 is an airforce number and not a Saab number. Not that it matters here but i just wanted to throw it out there.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Film appearances section
I don't know that the use of the Draken in the movie Fire Birds is notable enough to list here. I am taking it back out for now, please discuss here. Georgewilliamherbert 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. This is total cruft. - Emt147 Burninate!  21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, let's take everything about popculture anywhere in any article out, or keep this very very rare appereance in the text! For example, make sure all references to pop culture in the text about F-14 Tomcat is instantly removed if stuff like this doesn't interrest you! There should be No exemptions! --Towpilot 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're talking to the wrong people about that. We'd rather all Pop-culture references be taken out, including Top Gun references in the F-14 page. However, the consensus is the "especially notable" appearances should be kept. If you want the Firebirds mention, you need to prove it is especially notable using verifiable sources per WP:TRIV and WP:AIR page content guidleines. - BillCJ 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one would keep the Top Gun one anyways, but this one is just too minor to bother mentioning. Really.   Georgewilliamherbert 04:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The irony here is that this appearence is the only one ever (so far) by an ex. military Saab aircraft in a Hollywood production, and that's exactly why it's "especially notable" in an article about the airplane! In fact, unlike Saab 29, 32 and 37, the Saab 35 have never ever appeared in any other feature movie either! --Towpilot 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Only very, very notable appearances - where the aircraft becomes a major focal point of the movie, not just another part of the action - deserve mentions on the aircraft article (or so we assert; others disagree).  Of fighter jets, the only Hollywood movie appearance where the jet becomes a major focal point, in recent history (post-1970 at least), is Top Gun.  There have been hundreds of movies with various fighters since then - none of them rise to that level of importance for the jet.  Certainly not Firebirds.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would probably have agreed if we would have been talking about the article about the movie only, but now it's all about the airplane itself. This airplane wasn't randomly picked by the production company. They were looking for something that wouldn't be recognzied by the "general audience" (like the F-5 in "Top Gun"). The airplane ended up in USA trough a museum trade and wasn't supposed to fly at all. A matter of fact, the condition was specified "for static display only!" to even allow export from Sweden. When the movie premiered in Sweden, I wrote an article in an aviation magazine there about the use of this airplane. This caused severe political turbulence about high performace airplane export, and actually changed the laws accordingly! Not my intention, but interestingly how a Hollywood B-movie ends up as a hot political subjet across the Atlantic! This really makes the use of a Saab 35 "especially notable" in this case. I can understand that some people couldn't care less about movies or airplanes, but this is not written for them. I was planning to write more about this "especially notable" appearence down the road, but maybe I should start delete stuff I find not interresting in articles I don't know much about instead.--Towpilot 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The point on "especially notable" is that it usually requires a verifiable source attesting to its notability. If you can provide links to such articles (wouldn't mind listing yours too, but we'd need at least one more due to self-interest), it would lend weight to your case. Second, "notable" is not the same as "interesting". But if you want to delete all the non-notble cruft you find, go to it! I'll support you, but you'll find lots of opposition too from every owner of a particular video game who thinks his game is notable! - BillCJ 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another trivial addition, I remember that the aircraft also appeared in the French comic book series "Tanguy et Laverdure" ("Jaktfalkarna" in Swedish) (see image). If I remember correctly (it has been some 20 years since I read them) they were supposed to be South American fighters, possibly Brazilian.--MoRsE 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a Wikipedia policy against fun facts? Geez. I'm going to write in a Trivia section where I mention the movie appearence. I think it's funny and interesting enough to warrant a mention, and the movie article already links to this one as well. It's not as if the article is already so long that it can't handle a single little heading... Elrith 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of facts (see WP:NOT). Please respect consensus and leave the movie out of this article.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, no consensus has been reached, perhaps this issue is reaching a "heated" stage whereas it seems to be of a trivial nature. FWIW, IMHO: Bzuk 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Three people over a period of what, four days, is a Wikipedia consensus now? Good grief. I count three people for deletion and two against. That isn't a consensus where I come from.
 * I for one think that the movie appearance is an interesting bit of trivia. Anyone who has seen the movie and knows anything about aircraft is bound to wonder why a Draken was used and where it came from. The information fits in the article just fine and doesn't detract in any way from it. IMHO deleting stuff like this is just stupid. Elrith 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no "hard-and-fast" rule over asking for consensus of a controversial issue but in my limtied experience, you first have to clearly identify that there is call for consensus (which I can't readily see in this set of discussion comments, above), and usually set out the parameters for consensus to be reached. For example, in the case of the recent renaming of the Winnipeg International Airport, a call for consensus in changing the article title was made. A period of seven days was established in order for respondents to add their commentary. After the end of the discussion period, the original poster then reviewed the number of "pro" and "con" submissions and made a determination as to consensus. Consensus does not always mean majority, it does mean the majority of interested participants would be able to live with the final decision made, at least that is the generally understood "business leadership" application of the term. If there is truly a need for consensus on this issue, it is up to the original party to make that determination, otherwise, this issue will revert into an edit war as to what "significant" or "relevant" or "notable" actually means in context of the original posting (refresh my mind here, it is about the mention of an aircraft in a popular film? is it not? my mind wandered here as it seems a lot of time has been expended over this topic, but nontheless, IMHO, let's resolve it once and for all in this forum). Bzuk 12:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Tailless aircraft category
Just to clarify something (which I'm going to add to the article), the category is referring to a lack of horizontal tailplanes (separate elevator and horizontal stabilizer from the wing proper), not to lacking a rudder/vertical stabilizer. The Draken has a rudder, but not a horizontal stabilizer. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Crashes in Swedish service
in 1995 135 aircrafts had crashed in sweden alone according to the book Draken by Bo Widfelt

Name, Round 2
The ongoing low-grade edit war between the "experts" on the Swedish language and the aircraft's history needs to stop. In the absense of cited published, verifiable reliable sources, I've removed the translation. Please don not re-add any info regarding the name without citing a reliable source that can be verified independently. This does not include verbal info overhead in meetings or presentations, as that info is not published or verifiable. If you "saw it in a book somewhere", that's not sufficient; track down the book, then cite it, including page numbers. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There, there, don't be ashamed because you have no clue about this subject. I do not speak any greek and would therefor never make such a low-grade comment as above if you corrected a persistent miss-translation from greek, almost accepted by the old "two wrongs make a right" principle. I may not be an "expert", but Swedish is my first language and I dare anyone to prove me wrong that the given name "Draken" should be "The Kite" and not "kite". If so, I'm willing to listen. It will be veeeeery interesting. I don't mind having no translation about the name in the article, but if it should be there it should be absolutely correct (this is an encyklopedia, remember) and not based upon a longliving importunate myth that is (and this may shock you!) completely incorrect despite the fact it's been published before and therefor according to you is "verifiable" and "reliable"!


 * It's also very interesting that solid information directly from the mouth of the source isn't good enough or "reliable" for Wikipedia! It's not even abot a private research in this case. Erik Bratt writes about the chosen name in his aoutobiography "Silvervingar", (in english:"Silver Wings". Yeah trust me, that's exactly what it translate to!), but it's written in Swedish so I see no meaning in giving you page number to something you would not understand. How would you know I'm not lying? How would you know the book even exist if you can't find it at Barnes & Noble? --Towpilot (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source for the name (even if it is in Swedish) - then cite it - if not then it is better to keep it out. See Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - this is official Wikipedia Policy.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel. Towpilot, the problem is that other Swedish speakers are some of the ones disagreeing with you. If this were a firm, settled issue, then there would be no disagreement. That is why I am appealing to WP policy to try to settle this. If there are competing views from published reliable sources, then the solution per policy is to cite both sources. You can cite the Erik Bratt book as the source of the story, but we're still left with the translation issue if the book's in Swedish. Perhaps a reputable Swedish-English dictionary can be cited if the book has not been translated into English and is not available at my local supermarket where I buy my books. - BillCJ (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Towpilot (and others), the naming of Saab 35 was two-fold - both Dragon and Kite are correct in this case. Dragon from the mythological convention in Swedish military, and Kite for the wing planform resemblance of the toy. The Dragon-name was also used by the Saab 35 pilots in "Drakriddarorden" (The order of the dragon knights). The same witty dual-naming was applied to the Saab 37 Viggen where 'vigg' is thunderbolt (that come from the clap of Mjolnir's hammer) and also a duck which in French is called 'canard' (with reference to the canard wings). Urban Fredriksson mention the dual naming here:  T96 grh (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That the Swedish word drake can mean either "kite" or "dragon" is not a disputable fact and it doesn't require dedicated referencing. If someone want's to include various other tidbits about the reasoning behind the name, they should dig up some sources. Until then, I don't really see the point of smearing this dispute all over the lead.
 * Concering the translation, it should be noted that we're providing a translation of a term, rather than giving the plane an English name, meaning it should be written with lower-case letters. And while I know that purists will probably disagree with me on this one, I think we should also remove the definite articles. Yes, the Swedish names are formally in the definite form, but that's rather irrelevant in a translation like this since names of fighter aircraft in English are refered to without a definite article.
 * And could we try to go easy on the wikilinkage? Both kite and dragon are largely irrelevant links in context.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have absolutly no clue were you could have dug up any information saying that Draken would be referred to as a "term". What kind of term? It's not a technical term, so what exactly do you mean? It's undisputable a given name like Mustang, Spitfire, Lightning or any other aircraft name, wich like in this case never was used by the military operator, but more for the purpose of marketing. If you don't want to translate it at all, fine. Then leave it out. But if you do, it have to be correct! That fighter names (or rather any airplane name) are normally referred to without a definite article in English is the real irrelevant fact here since it's not about an English or American aircraft! It's about a Swedish airplane with a Swedish name, remember. And if now a translation is considered a necessity by someone, both kite and dragon are largely relevant links in context, proven by the long ongoing confusion about the meaning and background of the name. Since we are on the subject, the SAAB 29 was never ever given a name at all by SAAB! It was first called "Flygande Tunnan" (The Flying Barrel) in media only, wich was eventually shortened to "Tunnan" (The Barrel). Soon it became a name (and defenitely not a term!) used by everyone. SAAB didn't even like it according to Lars Brising, the chief designer of the SAAB 29 project. To say that "Tunnan" is a "term" is just plain stupid and only show your lack of any knowledge in aviation history in general, and Swedish aviation history in specific!! --Towpilot (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're kinda talking past each other. I'm refering to the issue of proper translation. The way I see it is that translations of names that are not actually official are merely translations of terms. Now, If Draken had an official alternative name in English, like a NATO reporting name, then it should be capitalized. But in this case the official name is Draken, and not "(The) Dragon". Just for comparison, translating the name of the P-38 to Swedish would be "blixt(en)" not "Blixt(en)". If I translated fighter names into Swedish, I would also consider using the definite form, since this is how it's done with Swedish aicraft.
 * As for linkage, I think we can both agree that anyone who can master enough English to read the lead knows perfectly well what both kites and dragons are. They don't need wikilinkage to understand the connection. Neither of those articles provide any immidiatelely accessible clarity concerning the naming of this aicraft, the double meaning of the Swedish word drake and especially not the topic of fighter aircraft. They do, however, create rather pointless distractions.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why I think a translation of the different names (not "terms") of SAAB aircraft is unnecessary to begin with! None of them have been official in English by SAAB anyway. If not anyone else remove them, I will. --Towpilot (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A translation of the meaning of the word drake is a service for the vast majority of readers who don't speak Swedish. As long as the article text doesn't insinuate that the translations are somehow official there is no point in removing them.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jane's all the Worlds Aircraft usually brings a translation in brackets of Swedish aircraft. In the 1977-78 issue there is a Saab 35 Draken article. I don't have this edition but I'm confident, that Jane's' translation is there. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been reading the old Jane's from the 1970s - all of them have given up translating "Draken". The headlines are: "SAAB 35 DRAKEN" and "SAAB 37 VIGGEN (THUNDERBOLT)". The newest Jane's has a "English name: Griffin" in the "SAAB JAS 39 GRIPEN" article, for comparison. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem with those translations is that they disregard the Swedish naming tradition, stipulating that combat aircraft gets definite article while unarmed and civilian do not. For example of the latter, we have Saab Safir. BP OMowe (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A 1971 SAAB advertisement for the Draken here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.161 (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)