Talk:Kyushu J7W Shinden

Do 335 is not similar

I see that the Do 335 was previously added under "similar aircraft", then removed (with an explanatory note), then added back.

The Kyushu J7W, XP-55 Ascender, and Henschel P.75 all have a canard design and only a pusher propeller. Either of those by itself is uncommon, and the combination is very rare. The Do 335 has a conventional wing layout and push-pull propellers. It's not similiar. I'm removing it again. -- Paul Richter 09:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The article plane was apparently INSPIRED by it -max rspct 10:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC) From the Dornier article - In Japan the Japanese navy ordered the development of a very fast heavy interceptor before the end of the Pacific war. The result was the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden(震電, "Magnificent Lightning") which is very similar to the Do 335.

max rspct 16:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have anything other than the Dornier Do 335 article indicating that they are similar? Because I don't find that at all convincing, and I haven't seen any other support for the claim of "inspiration". Besides, similarity means simply do they look alike?, (primarily, wing and engine configuration, size, purpose, crew) or could they be confused?. And the answer for the J7W and Do335 is unequivocally no.

I've removed the text from the Do335 article as well, solely with the intent of correcting that article itself, not with any intent to invalidate your argument above; the article indeed said what you claim.

However, if you look at the history of the Do335 article, you'll see that there was initially an anonymous entry claiming that the J7W was "the equivalent", which is entirely different from saying it was similar. Following this is an edit that rewords it as "very similar", and that's entirely incorrect and unsupported. --Paul Richter 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is additional explanation for removing the Do 335. (It came back and I removed it again.) The J7W Shinden is a canard & pusher design fighter/interceptor plane. The XP-55 and Libellula (M35 variant) are most similar being a canard/pusher/fighter. The Saab 21 is a pusher/fighter but with regular wing layout. The Do 335, however, is a tandem-engine (push-pull) design with regular wing layout and is a fighter-bomber. Therefore the Do 335 has nothing in common with the J7W Shinden, other than having one of the engines at the rear as a consequence of the tandem engine design. --Mizst (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Judge for yourself

• Dornier Do 335
• Kyushu J7W Shinden

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Kyūshū Hikōki K.K. - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the remaining shinden?

The article says it's at building 7 of the Garber Facility, but it is not shown in any of the lists of aircraft either for the Garber Facility or the Udvar-Hazy Center. Anyone know where this aircraft is? 74.239.2.104 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation

"震" means more or less "vibrating", and "電" effectively may be read as "lightning" though it usually means "electricity". I thus doubt that the proposed translation for "shinden" is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.135.100.251 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinese is a complex language in which characters often have multiple meanings, and those meanings change when used with other words. Vibrating electricity doesn't make much sense, and dozens of websites and books including many that are known for being reasonable accurate indicate magnificent lightning. It should be footnoted but I doubt your particular meaning is intended. Google translates it as electric shock, Babylon translates it as Mr Power and Microsoft and Seismo-electric, none of which seem consistent with Japanese naming conventions of the period. Several came back with "Shinden" rather than the actual meaning.NiD.29 (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I looked into dictionary and found that 震 denotes "thunder" in I Ching bagua. --Fukumoto (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Chinese is a complex language in which characters often have multiple meanings, and those meanings change when used with other words." Sorry, Chinese is not more polysemic than other languages. "Vibrating electricity" makes no sense but "vibrating lightning" does and is much plausible than the automatic translations you refer to. Fukumoto, as you wrote 震 can mean かみなりwhich would make sense "Thunder and lightning" (still different from "magnificent lightning" though) but also "威権がゆきわたる" which could also make sense, couln't it ? --

Just going by the sources I have, which may well be incorrect (whoever first translated it into English may have made an error, or may have chosen Magnificent Lightning because they determined it be the closest they could come to matching the meaning as it was at the time). Idioms used by the Japanese then may have fallen out of use. If you can find a source that says otherwise, have at it, or tag it for a source, or delete it. It would be helpful for someone with access to original sources to determine how the name was intended, and a secondary source that confirms that, especially as it seems to contradict most of the western sources. Would also be interested in how it was translated into other languages, particularly those unlikely to have been translation of English sources. If it had been mistranslated, it wouldn't be the first time something like that happened and was then repeated ad nauseum without being checked, especially with the difficulty many English speaking authors have of bridging the language barrier. Unfortunately original research isn't allowed directly (though it can be used to determine the more correct option, and sources then found afterwards, although because it is widespread, mention of the Magnificant lightning should still be mentioned - ie Shinden (whose name translates as "Thunder and Lighting", however many English language sources indicate the meaning as "Magnificant Lightning".) (with a note and references to both). Cheers.NiD.29 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yokosuka MXY6

When i am searching for information I am stumbled across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yokosuka_MXY6_Glider.jpg , while Yokosuka MXY6 page is redirected to this page. As I do not understand most of copyright status in the image page, I would suggest someone review it and if its is fine, move it to common and add the image here. Draconins (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First flight dates do not match in google versus wiki page.

When googling this plane, the Wikipedia infobox lists August 3, 1945 as the day of first flight. However, this page says that the first flight was on the 5th of April, 1945. Which one is accurate and how can I edit the Google info? Gøøse060 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Aight, I corrected the date to August 3, 1945 as all the sources I found say that's correct. It seems that the author confused first flight and prototype completed date.

I do think I screwed up the citation a bit though, so if anybody could take a look at that, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks :] Gøøse060 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)