Talk:Jet aircraft

Jet sizes

There are both compact and bus-size jetplanes. We should make multiple articles about different size jetplanes just like there are articles about different size automobiles. The article I am suggesting are compact jet and commercial jet. --SuperDude 00:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea. There's an article at business jet but commuter jet and commercial airliner are coming up blank. I don't know if "commuter jet" or "compact jet" are proper terms, however. I personally don't know much about jet aircraft, but my younger brother does. I might give him a call. Let me know what you want to do on this, SD. - Lucky 6.9 00:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First flight

Actually, the first operating jet was a British aircraft, the name of which escapes me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.101.101.78 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, I think the first british commercial jet was the comet -- Maj. Templeton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.204.143 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Coanda

The Coanda-1910 is listed above, but the Canadian biplane ca. 1912 is not. Reference needed: Older printed material on early flight.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roy.crabtree@gmail.com (talk • contribs) .

The Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane ever built, however, this article doesn't display its picture. Please display the picture of the Coanda-1910 jet plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.134.77 (talk • contribs)

No, see the arguments below. The Coanda-1910 has been very seriously challenged as to its supposed status as the first jet, a relatively recent claim. The acknowledged first jet is the Heinkel. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

I changed the first sentence to plural. Sounded better. Spaomark 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft is the plural per http://www.answers.com/aircraft&r=67 Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle aerodynamic lift during launch

I have searched around and can find no mention of this. Since the shuttle is more or less belly-up during launch, it seems counterintuitive that the lift surfaces would be of any help. In fact, it seems the opposite would be true. I would suggest deletion of this if the author can not provide citation. BigDaveB (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

co invented

Every book and article I have read on this subject matter, give each of these men credit, not just Whittle. I suggest that you rewrite, stating so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section mentions that the first manufactured turbine jetplane was the Heinkel He 178 turbojet prototype of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe), piloted by Erich Warsitz on August 27, 1939. I've got an article by Sir Frank Whittle here in an old aircraft magazine, entitled 'Contact' The Magazine for Air-minded New Zealand. Feb 1954, which contains a section wherein he discusses this, relating to the question of whether the Germans flew the first jet. He writes that in the sense that they got one off the ground for a few minutes but that if it was a question of the first flight of an efficient and successful airplane then no, and adds that Britain was certainly first in the field. He describes the test flight of the Heinkel on August 27 1939, saying; "A tiny single-seater jet Heinkel -the HE.178-flew for ten minutes in Germany on August 27, 1939, four days before the invasion of Poland. What happened on that flight is a mystery to me; but the engine was not further developed, and the plane never went into production." No mention of the Italian test flight mentioned in this article either, but Frank Whittle would have been aware it, it apparently having been heralded internationally as the first successful jet flight at the time according to the linked article, and may not have counted it as a successful flight for similar reasons to the above. I think it's worth noting in the article, if he's correct, that the Heinkel, while the first manufactured jetplane, was not successful, only flew for ten minutes, and was then not continued. And maybe something similar for the Italian prototype test if details can be determined.Number36 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

During its initial flight tests the He 178 was, due to the low power of its engine, unable to fly on its original set of wings and it was only after a new larger set of wings was fitted that it was able to become airborne. It was therefore a very marginal aeroplane, whereas the Gloster E.28/39 was a perfectly usable and practicable aircraft from the beginning. The He 178 was designed for a retractable undercarriage however it was fixed in the down position and the wheel wells faired-over for all the flights, and so the aircraft was never able to demonstrate the performance advantages of jet propulsion whereas the E.28/39 was soon achieving speeds equal to or better than the fastest contemporary piston-engined fighters and with better engines was eventually able to exceed 500 mph, and reach altitudes of around 40,000 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

NIGEL BROWN

Hey I Think I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.83.141 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Coanda not a jet

Coanda's 1910 aircraft was an attempt at a ducted fan. He described it as such in painstaking detail in several patents (British patent #GB191112740(A), Swiss patent #CH58232(A), etc). Aviation journals and magazines which covered the air show described it as a ducted fan as well(Cassier's Magazine (1911) Volume 39, page 199; Popular Mechanics March 1911 page 359; Technical World Magazine (1911) Volume 15 page 615; Aircraft (1910) Volume 1 page367). Coanda didn't change his story and start claiming it was a jet until others had invented jet engines; and when did he had a great deal of trouble keeping his story straight. Does anyone really think he should be credited with building a motorjet when there's no evidence whatsoever that he did, and a huge mountain of evidence that he didn't?Romaniantruths (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

verifiable reffrences are needed in order to make an edit of the article. please understand if we don't take your word for it 79.113.9.72 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If verifiable scources are needed to make an edit, User 79.113.9.72, then I guess I'd better remove the totally unreferenced assertion that the 1910 Coanda was a jet. I know you'll want whoever made those assertions to please understand if we don't take their word for itRomaniantruths (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The magazines referenced are all public domain and can all be found with a search of Google books. The patents are all also available on the internet, but just to make it easy for you here are some simple directions: Go to the Henri Coanda Wikipedia page and scroll down to the references. Click on The patents of Henri Coanda. Scroll down the patents until you find the patents I specified (the French one is there too! And if you can't read French, I think there's even an automatic translation available). Once you've read Coanda's own description of how his turbopropulseur works and seen his diagrams, please let me know if you have any evidence to the contrary other than his much later unsupported personal assertions, or re-iterations of same by lazy aviation historians. If you do find anything else perhaps we can discuss wether what you found should trump these primary scources in Coanda's own words.Romaniantruths (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC) And while we're at it, I notice that you've made quite a few edits to aviation articles without references(like the claim on the aircraft engine page that Jatho was the first person to attempt to fly using only on-board means, do you really mean that nobody ever tried this before 1903?). I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia so maybe you can explain why these rules apply to my edits, but not to yours.--With warmest regardsRomaniantruths (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Coanda was a jet, acording with most of qualified scholars who search on the subject, and the endless talk on "Coanda-1910" page clearly show that. Fact that some unreliable and not qualified ones may disagree, its another thing, but we should stick with the facts and dont go with some stupid bias again and again, its unproductive and will just lead to a war all over all kind of wikipedia articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.185 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as there are sources which agree that the Coanda-1910 was a jet, there are sources which say that it was not a jet; that it did not fly. Both sides of the dispute have good sources to cite. Our representation of the aircraft cannot state flatly that any of the disputed facts are indeed facts. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this article cannot state with certainty that the Coanda-1910 aircraft was the first jet aircraft. Gibbs-Smith and Winter performed extensive historical research and determined that it did not fly, ever, and that it did not have combustion in the air stream, a requirement for flight in air, as without it there would not be enough thrust. No matter who else says that the aircraft was the first jet (quoting Coanda's assertion from the 1950s and '60s), these two giants of aviation history are enough to stop us from being certain. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• you're funny. If those are giants of aviation i am soviet cosmonaut. Only relaible and qualified to talk about Coanda-1910 are Stine, Craciunoiu, Antoniu, and i may add Boyne. All this not that just researched all Coanda documents and archives, but, unlike those 2 clowns, have too the qualifications needed to understand them. Gibbs was a delusional nut who believe in ghosts and paranormal and was good at searching for Bayeux tapestry and old stuff from world exhibitions too, and Winter was a former journalist with a degree in history. Compare that with a rocket scientist and author of aeronautic books, a former Air Force colonel, director of Air and Space Museum and aviation historian or phd engineer aviations who write aviation history books since decades, and who had acces to all Coanda documents and atents. Is this a joke from you to still promote those "giants"? Are you have a clear scale of values or you live in alternative worlds as your idol, Gibbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.207 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Gibbs-Smith status as a reliable source take it to the appropriate forum for a third part opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• i think the problem is pretty solved, since even Gibbs agree in his book that <<<Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane ... Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.76 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Including of Coanda -1910

I will post some references (there is an abundance of them on "Henri Coanda" and "Coanda-1910" page, and i hope the personal bias of some peoples will not stop to be added

• http://books.google.com/books?id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=I1t9TMnOAtOQjAedztzSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.76 (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/January%202006/0106engines.aspx

"Romanian inventor Henri Coanda attempted to fly a primitive jet aircraft in 1910, using a four-cylinder internal combustion engine to drive a compressor at 4,000 revolutions per minute. It was equipped with what today might be called an afterburner, producing an estimated 500 pounds of thrust. Countless loyal Coanda fans insist that the airplane flew. Others say it merely crashed."

• http://www.newfluidtechnology.com.au/Henri_Coanda_The_facts.pdf
• Stine, G.H., "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, Sept. 1989
• http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/PAP/PAP-0672.pdf

"The Coanda effect is familiar to most hydraulicians, although perhaps not by name. The effect was first observed in 1910 by Henri-Marie Coanda, in connection with exhaust flow from an experimental jet engine (Stine, 1989)."

• http://books.google.com/books?id=Pwi2AAAAIAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+jet&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=oEV-TKCjOYnLswaS_pSWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDg8
• http://siris-archives.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1S834B9787474.9894&profile=all&uri=link=3100006~!132480~!3100001~!3100002&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ri=5&source=~!siarchives&term=Coanda%2C+Henri-Marie%2C+1885-1972&index=

And there are more, i dont think is needed to put them all, and is pretty clear by now. So i propose an introduction phrase as:

• "The first jet aircraft (fact still contested by some aviation historians-Gibbs) was "Coanda-1910", build by Romanian Henri Coanda and exhibited at Paris Air Show in 1910. It was considered an "experimental jet" or a "primitive jet" (see Stine and Boyne above), and used the same type of engine design as later "Caproni Campini N.1" and Japanese "Tsu-11". However, the "turbojet", the most common type of jet in use today, was invented in 30's, independently by Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain".

I hope this sound good enough and is a neutral point of view who can be posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.76 (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the def. in dictionary, Coanda 1910 was a jet plane

Even if Coanda 1910 had used just a ducted fan powered by a piston motor, the overall engine fits the definition of a jet engine (see below) and in consequence the picture of the airplane has to be added. Coanda 1910 used oxigen to burn fuel and produced a backward discharge of gases that pushed the plane forward. This is in the definition of a jet engine.

"Definition of JET ENGINE

an engine that produces motion as a result of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid; specifically : an airplane engine that uses atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel and produces a rearward discharge of heated air and exhaust gases" source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jet%20engine

"jet engine

1. An engine that develops thrust by ejecting a jet, especially a jet of gaseous combustion products.

2. An engine that obtains the oxygen needed from the atmosphere, used especially to propel aircraft and distinguished from rocket engines having self-contained fuel-oxidizer systems." Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A 'jet' engine discharges gasses rearwards through a propelling nozzle in the form of a high-velocity jet, hence the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Planes with ducted fan engines can fly. Binksternet is wrong as usual

There is enough power to fly a ducted fan jet engine. If you do not believe just take a look at this aircraft that flew in October 1932. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni

"Once again, this article cannot state with certainty that the Coanda-1910 aircraft was the first jet aircraft. Gibbs-Smith and Winter performed extensive historical research and determined that it did not fly, ever, and that it did not have combustion in the air stream, a requirement for flight in air, as without it there would not be enough thrust."(Binksternet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coandă-1910

User:MilborneOne Okay, we're here now. Can you please speak out? What's your beef with Coanda? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, Coanda was a rather clever man in his field. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you delete the picture of his plane that I added? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Because this is an article on the jet engine which the piston-engined Coanda 1910 is clearly not, refer to the Coanda-1910 article for more information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It was still a start. I didn't even say what it was, I just put the picture and it's name, let the reader decide whether it's a jet or not. It was a precursor. Can you respect that and give it the place it deserves, namely on this page? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is an encyclopedia we dont add pictures for the reader to ponder over we use reliable sourced information. So as the Coanda-1910 had nothing to do with the development of the jet engine either directly or by influence then it would be misleading to add it. Refer to the Coanda-1910 talk page for more information, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it had absolutely no influence? Hm? Can you prove that beyond any doubt? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Because jet engines dont work the same way as Coandas piston-engined Turbo-Propulser, have a read of the Coanda-1910 talk page not much point in repeating the same discussion here. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Year of invention of the turbojet

The article claims that "[t]he turbojet was invented in 1939". While the exact date on which the turbojet engine was invented is debatable, it was unquestionably before 1939, since Frank Whittle was testing a fully operational turbojet engine in 1937, having developed his design many years earlier. The article should be updated. BertyRussell (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That was changed by an IP in October 2019, and looks to have been either sneaky vandalism or incompetence. Thanks for spotting the discrepancy. BilCat (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ngl, this article is kinnda bad

There are a ton of bad generalizations and factual inaccuracies. Some parts are good, but others are riddled with typos

Things that I think could be better:

The jet engine section states a rocket engine is a type of jet. This is not true, as jets are fundamentally different in form, performance, and use. According to the Britannica definition, a rocket engine is not a jet because it does not intake air.

The flying characteristics section is a mess. It is only stated that jets preform differently with no further explanation. Jet engine’s response time varies massively between different jets and aircraft, which makes stating that they respond slower inaccurately.

There are several grammatical errors throughout the article.

I.E: The Lockheed SR-71 was one of the fastest jet flying at Mach 3.35 (3,661 km/h (2,275 mph

Mach is used in the article without any mention of the altitude or temperature, which makes the measurement useless as it changes depending upon the situation.

i might add stuff later

Mr Balding (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Editing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 30 April 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sara.nelson1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dr.ozkul (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

My Editing Plan

I am a student at Texas A&M University, enrolled in the Technical Editing class. In this class, one of our assignments is to edit a Wikipedia article, and this is the article I have chosen. I wanted to share some of the changes I am thinking of making.

• As I run into minor errors like grammar and flow, I plan on fixing them through copyediting.
• I may end up adding some more information to the lead in order to ensure that it properly and quickly summarizes the information to be found in the rest of the article.
• Deletion of things that seem mostly irrelevant to jet aircraft. For example, I think the deep dive into the history of the jet can be reduced in a way that still keeps the general idea, but is not taking up as much space in the article. This will make sure that the article itself stays on topic.
• There are a few places where the article appears to obviously be written/edited by different people. Particularly, in the Other Jets section, things become more like a list instead of a description. I plan on either introducing bullet points to this section to make it feel more intentional, or adding more information to make it more cohesive with the rest of the article.
• I believe that some information can be restructured/moved around in the article to better comply with the subheadings and increase overall flow. E.g., the first sentence under the Other Jets subheading is (at its core) a definition of jet aircraft, which I think could be better served in the lead of the article as it is not actually about other jets, and it provides information that readers may be looking for upon immediately opening the article.
• I also think that the Aerodynamics section would be better placed below the Flying characteristics section. The section after seems better correlated to Aerodynamics; therefore, information will be found easier and less confusing for readers.
• Finally, some puffery language is used throughout the article. Words like "highly innovative" violate Wikipedia's nPOV standards. I plan on either deleting this language, or including a citation that emphasizes that this is the opinion of experts, and not necessarily fact.

I will continue to update as further changes are made, and look forward to hearing anyone's feedback on the current editing plan. My changes can be expected to be completed within the next couple of weeks. Thank you! Sara.nelson1 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi all! I wanted to give a quick update on the editing process:

As I have continued to edit the article, I have been noticing many places of NOP/V violations. For example, the entire aerodynamics section is missing citations. Even for sentences like "aerodynamics are important" (which we all know to be true), a citation is still needed. I will be adding "citation needed" tags on this section, as well as throughout the article as I continue to discover further violations. I will make sure to update before making major changes. Sara.nelson1 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I am about to make some major edits to the article, and wanted to list some of the bigger changes I am thinking of making (not mentioned in my initial editing plan) before implementing them to the article:

• I am adding many citation needed tags throughout the article in order to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia’s NOP and verifiability standards.
• Deletion of the paragraph about Henri Coanda– this information is widely debated, though it is presented as fact in this article. Additionally, other arguments (which view his designs as potentially holding weight) are not mentioned, the article only focuses on the POV that argues that he lied. This is an NPOV violation. Furthermore, if we do not know whether or not Coanda’s designs had any relevance to the progression of the invention of jet aircraft, then it is overall irrelevant to the article.
• Deletion of “This was largely a proof of concept” (“History” section), which also violates NPOV as currently stated. This would need to be phrased as an opinion (with a citation), as opposed to fact. However, the sentence can work without it, so I feel deletion is the best choice.
• Deletion of “it was the first jet aircraft recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (at the time the German He 178 program was still kept secret)”. This lacks citations and is ultimately not needed in the article.
• Additional section titled “Military jet aircraft” (or something similar) that begins right before the introduction of the Me 262.
• Deletion of “...which was a much more complex solution”. This lacks proper citation, and is also not needed in the article. The usage of “much more”, especially, requires citation.
• Deletion of “the first orders for production Messerschmitt Me 262 aircraft were not issued until 25 May 1943, and although the first Me 262 prototype had flown in July 1942, the first production Me 262 did not fly until 28 March 1944 despite the Me 262 program having started earlier than that of the Meteor, as Projekt 1065, with initial plans drawn up by Waldemar Voigt's design team in April 1939.” This sentence is pretty wordy, and is presented before the Me 262 is even explained as the first operational jet fighter. Overall, the “History” section at this stage begins to be a list of dates instead of history about how the jet aircraft came to be what it is today. Deleting this and, instead, focusing on the importance of the Me 262 will better serve the purpose of the article.
• Standardization of date format (Month Day, Year) to avoid “piecemeal” appearing articles.
• Deletion of “Only the rocket-propelled Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was a faster operational aircraft during the war.” This aircraft is not specifically relevant to the focus of jet aircraft, it is just relevant to the history of the Me 262, which is not where the article’s attention needs to be.
• Adding a section entitled “Commercial jet aircraft” just before the Havilland Comet is introduced. This will allow for better separation of the different kinds of jet aircraft. Though it is still part of the overall history of the aircraft, I feel as though it would not cause confusion for the viewer to separate the commercial jets into their category. The “history” section can be focused on the initial beginnings of the jet aircraft. It will also keep the “history” section from getting too overwhelming/long.
• Moving the last sentence before “Other Jets” to the “Military jet aircraft” section.
• Deletion of the entire “Aerodynamics” section. Excluding the “aerodynamics is therefore an important consideration” statement, I will move the contents of this section to the lead. However, I will not copy and paste it exactly, I will just take the general key points of information and synthesize them to the information found in the lead. This will allow the viewer to be able to find more information pertaining directly to the jet aircraft in the beginning of the article, and I feel as though this information correlates well enough with the definition of jet aircraft to not need its own section.
• Same thing as the previous bullet point, but for the “Flying characteristics” section. I will, very briefly, include some of the comparison to propeller aircraft in the article’s lead, but delete most of the section’s contents, and the section as a whole.
• Finally, I am on the fence currently about deleting the final two sections altogether as well. Wikipedia articles are not meant to become too technical, and are supposed to be easily understood by the average reader. While this is useful information, I don’t feel it is necessarily relevant to jet aircraft. If I do decide to delete it entirely, I will give an update that communicates such, but wanted to first make sure it was known that it is something I’m considering!

Side note: Contrary to my initial editing plan, I will not be moving the first sentence in the “Other jets” section to the lead as it does actually fit where it is! Sara.nelson1 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I just finished up my editing for this article. I implemented many “citation needed” tags, added two new sections, and deleted the “aerodynamics” and “flying characteristics” sections. I reorganized a lot of the content, and deleted things that I felt were “fluffing” up the article (for lack of better words) with subjects mostly unrelated to the actual topic of jet aircraft. I also deleted things that violated Wikipedia’s NPOV, V, and NOR standards. All in all, I followed my editing plans entirely, with the exception of deleting the final two sections (which I ended up feeling was relevant to the article, and could be understood by someone who wanted to understand it).

Some information I think would be beneficial to add in the future:

• In the lead, there is mention of Ohain and Whittle, but their relevance to each other is not stated. This can lead to confusion for the reader. I think explaining each of their contributions to the Heinkel He 178 would make the material clearer, because right now the two ideas are not really connected. (It is explained further down in the article, but I still think that the connection is necessary in the lead as well).
• Towards the end of the “Commercial jet aircraft” section, things become almost like a list, and significantly less detailed. Including more information for these aircraft that mirrors information given in the previous paragraphs would allow for better flow, and less of a piecemeal-appearing article. This is also true for the entirety of the “Other jets” section.

Sara.nelson1 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)