Talk:List of experimental aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Aircraft need date of first flight

After the name and purpose of the aircraft, the next most important piece of information is the year of first flight. Since the US X-planes main page already contains that info, I started adding it to the other US experimental aircraft. Please join in to add that info for all of the aircraft! Paulgush (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XB not a series

XB- is not a series. The XB-70 was a prototype B- series aircraft, and most (all?) B- series aircraft that actually flew were preceded by an XB- prototype.

I suggest confining this list to pure research machines, like X-planes. --Rlandmann 00:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't care too much about how things are organized/categorized on this page, though I agree that it would be best to restrict the page somewhat. I tried to lay down some loose restrictions in the opening paragraph, though they can be tweaked... As for the XB-70, I just randomly picked "XB series" as a header. Other terminology is fine. —Mulad 01:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that since this list appears to be US-centric, US spellings ought to be used. ;Bear 00:03, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Merge and too US-centric.

The page is nearly identical to the "X-plane" page. It is also a list of US experimental aircraft only.

Inflatoplane

Goodyear's Inflatoplane is opften refered to as XAO-3 [1] or the latter version of it the XAO-3G1... [2] 200.181.52.9 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series confusion

Regarding US aircraft designations, there is no such thing as the XA, XB, XF, or XP series. These are all part of the A, B, F, and P series respectivley. As such, I have removed the "not used" designations from the lists, as they are misleading, implying that the numbers were not used at all. For example, "XF-86", when in fact there was a "XP-86" that became the F-86 Sabre. This is not an exuastive list of every designation under each series, but rather a list of experimental aricraft that were not part of the official X-series, but were non-the-less notable. - BillCJ 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XF-11

Should the Hughes XF-11 be listed here? I am not an airplane buff so I thought I'd ask. It seems like there are a lot missing? --24.147.86.187 18:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Saab_210 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.45.253 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Saab 210 added! - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch indeed! Not sure about the XF-11 - a lot of the U.S. planes really need cleaning up and cleaning out, as prototypes/variants (XB-25E/F/G) probably shouldn't be included, while purely experimental aircraft designated in "normal" series (XF-92) would be retained. In fact, I'd suggest keeping only the following types that are "X-plus-modifier in the Mission Designation System" designated:

XC-142
XF-92
XF-104 = replace with NF-104...?
Maybe a few of the earlier XP series
XP-59
XV-15

...as the others were either prototypes of production aircraft, or were intended as such, and this list should be for aircraft built strictly for experimental purposes. Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this list should really be for experimental aircraft and not prototypes that became production aircraft, although there many be variants of production aircraft that are used experimentally. An example is the Schweizer SGS 1-36 Sprite pictured in that article and described on that page. What do we do with those? - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lockheed NF-104A was a trainer for X-15 program so doesn't belong, the XP-59 was designed as a fighter and while not used as such, was used primarily as a trainer rather than as a research aircraft. The XF-11 was like many of the types listed above a prototype for a photo (Foto) aircraft that along with the Republic XF-12 did not enter production due to the end of the war.NiD.29 (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope?

Seems to me this page is a narrow def of "experimental", given FAA lists all homebuilts as such.... Trekphiler (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because this is List of experimental aircraft, not List of American aircraft certified in the Experimental category. Lots of homebuilts are built to well-defined designs with nothing 'experimental' about them aside from their being built by the pilot instead of a factory. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, US rules are a bit of an anomaly as homebuilts are not classified in most countries as "experimental". Here in Canada, for instance, they are issued with a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Amateur-built Aircraft, nothing experimental about them. - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of nearly every US military aircraft ever built would seem to be a bit out of scope as well - most of these were simply pre-production aircraft and there was nothing experimental about them beyond that they were the first of their type. To follow the logic to its conclusion, every aircraft ever built should be on here, as it was at one time, a pre-production aircraft. On the opposite tack, none of the prewar NACA aircraft are listed, which have a much stronger claim to being experimental, as they were used for actual experiments. The Russians and French also had a lot of experimental types, testing out various configurations and ideas, and they are likewise ignored in favour of an indiscriminate list of US military aircraft.NiD.29 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that - I'm going to take an axe to the 'pre-production' types right now in fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped out non-truly-experimental types down to Canada - must dash now! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped a few more that were never experimental just prototypes or cancelled projects, some of the Americans needs sorting into alpha order. As NiD.29 says loads of French and Germany types that were really experimental missing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed a bunch more, and started with adding actual experimental aircraft back it. Some more still to go though.NiD.29 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have gotten the last of them - for now. The challenge now is tracking down all the experimental aircraft that were built - Italian and French experimental programs are not well covered in English books, though at least now Russian ones are. I rewrote the definition but am wondering if drones should be in - most aren't much more than models anyway and am inclined to omit them.NiD.29 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I don't believe that conversions of production types that were used as testbeds are within the scope of this list, unless they were truly exceptional or have their own articles for the subtype. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why a separate article for Chinese UAVs and planes?

Why there's a separate section for China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinoxe (talk • contribs)

If you're referring to the 'see also' link, that actually points to a category; it should be expanded into this article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sole entry in the category was already included under Taiwan (Republic of China). I deleted the unnecessary linkNiD.29 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XB-70 is an experimental aircraft and should be included

CLOSED

OP withdrew proposal following consensus discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Even per the entry for North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie: Development was then turned over to a research program to study the effects of long-duration high-speed flight. Being used for research clearly falls within the confines listed at the top of the article "a list of experimental aircraft, or aircraft used or built to conduct experiments involving aerodynamics, structural materials, propulsion systems, configuration and equipment" - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesabot (talk • contribs)

I would say it is a pretty marginal case and all based on the text at North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie#Experimental_aircraft. It seems to have only been a bomber development program that led to another bomber development program, the B-1 and in that regard is not a lot different from the XB-52 or XB-58 or even the XB-29. I am interested to hear what other editors think though. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So can I go ahead and add the experimental aircraft to the list of other experimental aircraft? Lesabot (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a prototype rather than an "experimental" aircraft so I would be inclined not to include it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Boeing referring to it as an experimental aircraft: https://www.boeing.com/history/products/xb-70-valkyrie.page which seems pretty verifiable that it's an experimental aircraft Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth. Honestly, I don't care whether it is included or not, but it seems pretty arbitrary to exclude an aircraft that was used for experimentation and is repeatedly referred to as experimental from the list of experimental aircraft. Lesabot (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the US every homebuilt aircraft is called an "experimental aircraft" and required by the FAA to have a placard saying that right on the aircraft itself and we still don't include them here, either, because this article has different criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what criteria does the XB-70 not meet? Is "testing the flight regime of a supersonic transport" not an experiment "involving aerodynamics, structural materials, propulsion systems, configuration and equipment"?Lesabot (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just going over old ground - we addressed that above. It was designed as a bomber prototype and used to do developmental work for the B-1. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was also used to study the effects of sonic booms from large platforms in urban areas: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-084-DFRC.html That experimental enough for you?Lesabot (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far the consensus is leaning towards not including it, but to gain wider input, I have left an invitation at WikiProject Aircraft to ask other editors to join this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article states explicitly that "Prototypes, pre-production and homebuilt aircraft described as experimental but which were not used in this manner outside their own development are excluded." We have to ask, was the XB-70 used significantly for general research? According to the article on the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, after cancellation "development was then turned over to a research program...". However this often happens with cancelled prototypes and these are generally not included in the article; the Valkyrie does not seem exceptional in this respect. Significantly, a third aircraft was ordered for purely experimental purposes but was itself cancelled before completion. I think we are right not to include every production prototype turned over to research, and that encompasses the Valkyre. I would suggest making the article lead a little clearer on this point, and I'll have a think about suitable wording. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was used as part of SST development as well https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/121584main_FS-084-DFRC.pdf. Is the contention that it was a prototype for both the B-1 and the Concorde? Or, maybe, it was used for experimentation. Lesabot (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My contention in this post is that if you intend to be facetious, there is no point in talking to you. I would advise you to make your points rationally and politely, or they will at best be ignored. I stated my previous contention plainly, it is there for you to read. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, the XB-70 was a prototype of an intended production aircraft, as opposed to a truly experimental aircraft like the Bell X-1, which was never intended to be anything but a research aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesabot: I gather by this edit that you are withdrawing your intention to include the XB-70? Since all other editors commenting here opposed its inclusion, your edit would indicate a complete WP:CONSENSUS on the subject. If so, I think we can just close this thread out as resolved. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want Lesabot (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scope of list

What is the downside with just including all experimental aircraft that were used for research? If the title of the list is Experimental Aircraft then I would think that people coming would want a list of aircraft that were used to conduct experiments. Lesabot (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant distinction between experimentation and research. An experimental aircraft is one designed and built specifically to gather data on its design principles (setting aside the US classification of many homebuilds). It is a recognised role, like a fighter or a transport. Other aircraft, be they production examples or prototypes, may be co-opted to carry out research into one thing or another, but that does not make them experimental aircraft. For example a production transport aircraft adapted by NASA to conduct research into global warming becomes a research aircraft, but not an experimental one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adapting a single craft out of a line is something entirely different from using the line as part of the test. Like, N404PA was just a 707 with a bunch of radomes on it, so I wouldn't say Shashambre was an experimental aircraft. But when an entire type of aircraft gets called a testbed that seems significantly different. It may have started out as a prototype, but by the end of it's life it was operating as the platform for evaluating sonic booms as part of the SST program.Lesabot (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, it was conducting research into sonic booms. You make my point well, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was an experimental aircraft conducting experiments. Lesabot (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: your new lede is nicely succinct. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was lucky to have on my shelf three closely-overlapping sources, each having a suitable example title. I have also somewhat boldly re-purposed the parent Experimental aircraft article as a disambig page. Comments/fixes are welcome there, too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]