Talk:List of X-planes

"X-plane projects are still underway as of 2004."

"X-plane projects are still underway as of 2004." Any updates? :) ----Unforgettableid | Talk to me 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone going to put the recently announced X-56A in the list? 94.197.208.227 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Image:LockheedX7.JPG has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LockheedX7.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Origin?

Where does the X notion come from? Does some authority (e.g. NASA) designate new 'X' craft? Or do companies do it themslves, according to tradition? Either way, I think it should be explained in the article? --AndersFeder 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'X' is part of the Mission Design Series of U.S. aircraft designations, and is assigned by the U.S. Government. Companies can, of course, call their aircraft anything they want. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[Company name] in front of X?

Any objections to moving the the couple of articles that do not include the company name in the article title (3, 13, ...), so the company name is in the title/URL when it's explicitly written with it in the article body? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-15t18:52z

no list?

Since the content of {{X-planes}} has changed to a link from a list, there doesn't seem to be a complete and (I'm feelin') convenient list of all the X-planes, or is there? If not, why don't we put it in this article or should we access X-plane/gallery every time? --marsian 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I am returning the template. I think the gallery shoudl go in it as well. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written conjecture

Removed this:

"Some believe that the United States Government has developed a X-Plane that is capable of reaching mach 12! Several people one day in california said they heard a sonic boom and several windows broke. In the air above them a huge cloud formed like the ones you see at the end of commercial airplanes in the skies (kind of looks like smoke comming out of the back of the plane or off the wings). Some ex-workers for lockheed-martin say that there was infact a plan of building a plane that went mach 12. Some even say that UFOs are used to cover up secret projects by the government. Nothings certain for sure weather these planes exist or not but if humans built the space shuttle to go mach 20+ couldnt they have built a X-Plane that goes Mach 12. That for you to believe or not."

Exclamation points, conjecture with no cited sources, questions asked of the reader...

X-52

Why is there no X-52 plane in the series? (Iuio 06:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

Explained that it was to avoid (?) confusion with Boeing B-52

Lack of images

Who can import free of rights images yet here not available : X16, X39, X41, X42 ? I found images, but not free or rights. --Tangopaso (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Page name

It seems to me this page would be better served being moved to List of X-Planes, as that's basically what it is - and wouldn't require too much work to be a very excellent list, as opposed to a stub-type article that happens to include a large list in the middle of it. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

other X

Should there be a mention of other "X" designated planes? Stuff like the XB-70, XF, XP, etc. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not related. X in those cases is a modifier meaning prototype version. See 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system for more explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As Fynlasyon says, those are entirely different. Here, 'X' is used as a mission symbol - equiviliant of 'F' or 'B'. In those other types, 'X' is a mission modifier (equiviliant to, say, the 'U' in 'UC-103'). The other types are sometimes covered in List of experimental aircraft, as well. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions

Note the comments on the current peer review. Improve citation formatting is the main suggestion so far. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

The WP:AVILIST style guide bans images in aircraft lists by default. However it allows that local consensus can agree that a given article is a special case and can differ. Are the X-planes a special case? Images in the table certainly make it look prettier, but do they genuinely add to its functionality or do they just get in the way? If a consensus to keep them as a special case does not emerge in this discussion, they will be removed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is an enhancement and adds to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they work well, at least on a laptop. These are very unusual, I doubt that many people can match most numbers with even the general look of the plane, and the notes don't help. Sammy D III (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Images should be included where appropriate. AVILIST would seem to be at odds with the MOS. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You might like to take that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. In particular, to point out what the MOS does regard as "appropriate" use in this context and how that differs from AVILIST. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Retain, most of the X-planes are very distinctive and a simple description doesn't convey that. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Retain images, they are of encyclopedic content, and what users want to see/read/use to identify the X-plane they want info on. WP:IAR on the MOS; it's not like it's a list of all ships of the same class (ie. Arleigh Burkes) , or ships that all look similar (ie. battleships), these do not look similar, and people use the look to identify the topic -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep the images - they absolutely improve the article. There is no downside here. - ^theWOLFchild 20:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Data columns

Can I suggest breaking out a couple more columns?

First, split the manufacturer/agency into separate columns for each. This should make it easer to see which is which and, perhaps ultimately, to sort on the primary or sponsoring agency.

Second, to split off the role or purpose from the notes. Again, this should make it easier to sort on a given research goal.

What do folks think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Be BOLD and go for it. You put a lot of work into articles and I'm sure your suggestions will only be an improvement. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

There are a few inaccuracies that I have found while editing the article. I recommend double checking the data in the tables (sponsoring agencies, first flight date, etc).

Is there a way we can add a column for Final Flight without cluttering the page up? We may want to work on the table formatting a bit as well.

Made a lot of significant updates, let me know if there are conflicting ideas. Thanks!Kees08 (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:AVILIST before tinkering with the table format. You should not have added the number of flights column without establishing a consensus here first. The purpose of a list like this is not to jam in as much detail as possible on each machine but to provide a summary overview. I don't think there should be a column for this. Also, column headings are fairly standard so for example it should be Date and not First flight.

I have no other problems with your content updates.

The final flight might be recorded in a Status column, similar to the lists of aircraft with military operators, if folks agree here.

I note also that the Date entries should be trimmed back to the year only, in line with WP:AVILIST.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

My mistake for not checking out AVILIST first. I will leave it up to you, but I would recommend changing the date field to something like First Flight or similar. I understand that the column gets a little wider, but for someone coming in 'off the street,' they will have no idea what date really means. Perhaps we could add a footnote to the table or similar?

What are your thoughts on number of flights? I think for this type of list it is an important column. Some X-planes only fly once or twice, while others flew hundreds of times, and it provides a quick easy way to see how much each plane was used. If the consensus is to remove the number of flights, I will remove it. I don't believe the columns are too busy as is.

I'll trim back the date entries to the year only, but that is how most of them were when I got here :). (Done!)

Perhaps part of the problem here is that there is no article on X-planes. I was trying to think of a place where I could put a timeline of in service X-planes, but I suppose this isn't an appropriate article. What are your thoughts there?

I would also recommending removing the nicknames on the X-plane (Starbuster, Stiletto, etc). I think it just clutters the list up.

Let me know your thoughts. I believe First Flight, Final Flight, and # of Flights are important, brief bits of information. Kees08 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The first flight / date issue was discussed at the time. For craft that never flew, it should be the date of cancellation. The purpose of this is to give some sanity to sorting on the column. and the choice for the heading was either "Date" or a long essay. I have to say that, coming in off the street, there are not a lot of sensible date options to choose from. But if you still think that a note explaining this in every such table would be useful, take it up on the Avilist talk page.

How much each plane flew is not a defining characteristic. What was its wingspan, was it a delta or maybe a canard, how many engines did it have, how fast and high did it fly? These are more important to many readers than the flight statistics. Why should any of these be more significant for X-planes than for other experimental types in other lists? No, I see no argument for a special case here.

An X-plane article would be good. Jay Miller's book carries a useful beginning as Chapter 1. They faded out for a while, with the X-29 and X-31 staking claim to a whole quarter of a century (X-30 anybody?). Then suddenly they came back with a vengeance. There has to be a story worth telling about that. A timeline would be interesting too, and I suspect that it might need its own page.

I agree about removing unofficial nicknames such as Starbuster, although official names which are verifiable in reliable sources, such as the Stiletto example you also give, should stay. There is also some confusion over types with the X designation going into production - being productionized under a new designation seems more likely to me and the list should reflect the truth.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Righto, would you like me to change the N/A's to the cancellation date then? I thought 'Cancelled XXXXX looked really clunky, and if you define the sort number as the year it would still sort it correctly. Your call, I don't really care all that much either way on that.

I'll bring it up on the Avilist talk page here when I get time this week. I think it would be value added to clarify the date more. I didn't know what it meant when I first viewed the page, as a very small sample size.

Fair enough on the number of flights. I'll get them removed (probably not right this second, sometime this week). Done!Kees08 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the X-plane article. Would you have time to get one started? I am new to Wikipedia editing and also have a stronger passion for rockets. If you don't, I'll get it on my to-do list.

Sounds good on the nicknames, I'll leave the judgement of removal up to you.

I was thinking of writing a very small summary in the 'Notes' column for each X-plane, is that something you would agree with? Kind of a small summary so readers could click into articles of specific X-planes that interest them.

I think that settles pretty much all of it then? Let me know if additional issues exist. Thanks!

Kees08 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Over dates, I have already changed the cancelled projects we have dates for, the others should be left blank until we find them out. Some X-planes were fictional cover-ups. I'd suggest that for these we give the date the cover-up story was issued, There should then be no need for "N/A" to appear in the column, as it is a pretty useless sort value. Having the sort produce an ordering which does not match the chronological order in the date column strikes me as self-defeating: the question immediately arises, 'what is this anomaly doing here?' Why on Earth would one want to confuse the poor soul in off the street like that?

Sadly I have very little time spare for a new article, nor is it in my area of knowledge. I'd suggest that we expand the lead section of the present article until it becomes top-heavy, then split off the lead to form the basis for a new article.

Notes are a creeping nightmare and tend to be abused. The less said in them the better. They can provide key clarifications and citations to the rest of the item entry, and perhaps major highlights of the type which are not given in the main columns. We really do not need a "List of summaries of the X-Planes".

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair use of File:Boeing X-50A.jpg

A recent discussion at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May File:Boeing X-50A.jpg decided to remove File:Boeing X-50A.jpg on the grounds that this list should not contain images. But that discussion was never announced on this talk page, so the process is broken and I have restored it. I have also restored and updated the rationale on the file maintenance page, pointing it to this page where we formed a local consensus to include images and to WP:AVILIST where the ground rules for such local consensus are set out. If anybody seeks to argue the case, please do so here and not in some image-based discussion list where none of us here knows what is going on, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of X-planes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

May never be able to grow out of the stub phase, but some cleanup is needed.

Substituted at 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of X-planes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230143911/http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/getdoc/d25952ab-5881-4999-8593-6f7f196c8770/a_history_of_the_joint_strike_fighter_programme.aspx to http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/getdoc/d25952ab-5881-4999-8593-6f7f196c8770/a_history_of_the_joint_strike_fighter_programme.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of X-planes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605105552/http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661 to http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031220121649/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/early_X_planes/Tech27.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/early_X_planes/Tech27.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928220628/http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/xplane.html to http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/xplane.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• X-60A - GO Launcher 1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Image improvements

The images in the list are pretty small, it is hard to see the key features of some aircraft. On the other hand, if they were all enlarged then the physical length of the table would increase correspondingly. Should they be enlarged a bit or are they about right as they are? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, would they be better positioned as the first column, or some other different column from where they are now? I think they look a bit odd stuck in the middle like that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The photos are essentially thumbnails, so probably worth keeping, as any interested reader can quickly click on them to enlarge them. I do agree, though that they should be moved to the right side of the table, instead of being in the middle like that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we agreed some time ago that they were needed, but I am just wondering if they should be a bit bigger? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Now moved and enlarged a little. Oddly, this has upset my browser algorithm for adjusting column widths so I put in some code to partially override that. Does it look about right to you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is looking just fine on Firefox 74 here, both at 1000 px width and 1366 px. Thanks for your work on it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Article title

X-plane currently redirects here. It is a more direct title and more likely to be typed in by readers. The article could also do with some more background adding, which would make the list a bit less dominant. Should it be moved over the redirect to X-plane? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now it is really a list article, so I would suggest expand it first until it really isn't a list article and then see about moving it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Thanks again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

X-58

If the X-58 and the XQ-58 are basically the same machine, should it not be properly listed? If they are not the same machine, we should not add a note that they are. Nor should we sit on a visibly uncertain and speculative fence, as we are doing now. Which way to go? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That the X-58 slot was apparently assigned to the XQ-58 is what cited sources state. That's why it's listed the way it is. If we ever get official confirmation one way or the other, then we'll follow that. This is how the X-52 is handled, as sources state it was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-52. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, as cited to date, one journalist deduces that it was. That is not enough. Can we have better sourcing than that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to look for for more, have at it. The DOD will come out with an explanation soon enough. Designationsystems.net make freedom of information act requests every year, and when he gets a reply, he posts it on his site. It's an SPS, but one respected by several notable published authors about US military aircraft. If other editors support it's removal, I'm.fine with that, but not having some kind of note there will just cause more confusion for our readers. At least there is a source of some kind. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Piasecki X-49-3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

General Atomics XQ-67A

The designation of General Atomic's entry to the USAF OBSS Porgram is the XQ-67A, and slots in following the X-66. This is in line with how the Kratos XQ-58 seems to have a slot reserved for it; should we insert an entry stating that 67 was skipped and likely points to the XQ-67, like how the XQ-58 is currently entered? Here's the Warzone article on the aircraft: https://www.twz.com/air/xq-67a-combat-drone-from-general-atomics-breaks-cover Omega LVIII (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Omega LVIII If there is a reliable source that explicitly states that the XQ-67 takes the place of the X-67 designation (as the source provided for the XQ-58 does), then yes, it should be inserted here. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)