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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: 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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Picture[edit]

This article needs a picture BADLY.PowderedToastMan 07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]