This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This redirect 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 redirect is supported by the aircraft project.

I saw this was just sorted as an aircraft component. Isn't it technically a type of aircraft no a piece of an aircraft. A Rotor/Wing would be a component and a canard would be a component but a canard rotor/wing is a type of aircraft. Am I the only one that sees it this way? Am I missing something in the big picture that would explain this classification? Stardust8212 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Is this article worth keeping? It is basically a stub about the Boeing X-50 Dragonfly, and the minimal information about the basic configuration is already in the Rotor wing article. I personally think it can be deleted, but should it more correctly be merged with say the rotor wing article and talk page? If there is significant disagreement or other complications, I will post a more formal discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge: I can't see any reason to keep it separately from Rotor wing, this is a closely related subject with little scope for a longer article and Rotor wing is not too long to accept a bit more material from a merge. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge - I completely agree. It would seem this very much belongs in the rotor wing article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply