Talk:Junkers Ju 287
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Junkers Ju 287 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture edit
This article needs a picture BADLY.PowderedToastMan 07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comparable Aircraft edit
Removed:
|similar aircraft= Grumman X-29 - Su-47
These aircraft are 80s-90s fighters, not comparable to a 40s era bomber. Jons63 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say "aircraft of similar era", it says "comparable". Technically ANY aircraft is "comparable" since they can all be compared, but in this case these three aircraft are almost the only forward-swept aircraft ever designed. That makes them comparable in a way that an Arado 236 and a A-3 Skywarrior are not. What other aircraft would you call more "comparable"? They are three unusual forward-swept aircraft, all jets and all limited production aerodynamic testbeds. There are plenty of similarities putting them all into a common classifiation, in spite of their eras.
64.223.167.35 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 edit
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
drawings edit
would like to see a drawing FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Thank You
Not "revolutionary". edit
"Revolutionary" would mean that it revolutionized aircraft design, started a new trend that was copied by others. The forward swept wing never caught on, so it clearly was not "revolutionary". It can't even even be given credit for conventional swept wings because the article specifically says it wasn't to reduce transonic drag, but "to provide more lift at low airspeeds". Since this appears to be nonsense, it would appear that it was a failed experiment whic bore no fruit, and is thus "unique" and "novel" (meaning "new"), but was not "revolutionary" since it did not lead to widespread adoption of forward-swept wings, particularly on low-speed STOL aircraft. For my part, if forward-swept wings increase lift at low airspeeds, one would expect them to be in use on STOL aircraft today, instead of the almost universal thick, high aspect ratio, unswept wing more like a glider. No, my understanding is that forward swept wings can create more lift at high AOA, but that has more to due with maneuverability. But I don't challenge that part, just the phrasing. I also would not say "one of the first jet aircraft with fixed landing gear". I know many are eager to establish the Luftwaffe as FIRST and best, but in this case it is one of the ONLY jets with fixed gear. Saying 'one of the first' suggests many to follow, which is not the case.
64.223.167.35 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)