![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of the last entries in the list of parasite "aircraft" are unmanned drones / missiles.
Q-2C Firebee, fire practice target drone D-21, reconnaissance drone Pegasus, satellite launcher X-43 Hyper-X, research drone White Knight/X-37, research drone
I wonder whether it is a good idea to include non-manned aircraft/drones/research model aircraft as the line between them and missiles is small (e.g. the Luftwaffe's Mistral programme, or the USSR's MiG 19 based air launched anti-shipping missiles). If unmanned aircraft/research models/drones/largeish missiles are to be included as parasite aircraft there are very many dropped unmanned research "aircraft" not included at present - basically only post war US types are in the list above. Some agreement as to boundaries is probably also a good idea. Winstonwolfe 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above, I suggest boundary issues as to when drones/missiles count as aircraft are impossible to negotiate if we let in small remote controlled targets like the Firebee, satellite launching rockets like the Pegasus and research models like the X-43 as "parasite aircraft".
I suggest all non manned "aircraft" should be deleted from the list of parasite aircraft. That would be:
DC-130/Q-2C Firebee, C-130 based drone
Lockheed D-21/M-21, for high-speed reconnaissance, based upon the SR-71 Blackbird (1963)
L-1011/Pegasus, for satellite launches (1990)
B-52/X-43 Hyper-X, a hypersonic research test article
White Knight/X-37, for DARPA's spaceplane project
If you disagree, post reasons under :-). Winstonwolfe 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I assumed it was supposed to become an exhaustive lsit of parasite aircraft. Leaving aside the Zvenos, do you know of any manned examples not on the list?
Possibly a different section could be added to include those listed above, noting that these are examples of similar ideas or boundary cases, I don't know that the inspiration for unmanned drones or air launched space vehicles resulted from parasite aircraft, so I'm a little uncomfortable with "where the concept could go". If a drone section is included examples such as the German Mistel or Russian KS-1 Kometa / AS-1 Kennel, and Kh-20 (AS-3 Kangaroo) aircraft sized missles - and the unmanned Migs dropped in testing the idea.
Incidentally I understood it was Felixstowe, with an s, as it was named after the seaplane station (and port) of that name. Winstonwolfe 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the origin of the term? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The term 'parasite' is ridiculous for this use. In biology, a parasite is something that hurts the host. It is also generally implied that 'parasites' are not being hosted willingly..
Aircraft that are based and launched from other aircraft are not 'hurting' the host, they are assisting and cooperating for a shared goal. In biology a more appropriate term would be mutualism or symbiosis. Yes they take up space and use more fuel from the larger aircraft, but this could be said about any equipment, ordinance, or people carried by any aircraft.. 'Parasite aircraft' is a dumb term that should be replaced. As far as I can tell, this is not a widely used or accepted term, but it appears that some Wikipedia editors are trying really hard to make it seem as if it is.. AnswerManDan ( talk) 03:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The image File:MM Short Mayo Composite scan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't manned missles such as the Baka bomb qualify as parasitic aircraft even if they were on one-way suicide missions? Bachcell ( talk) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My references mostly refer to "composite" aircraft - often these do not use the term "parasite". I also think that approach would lead to a more useful article. Therefore I propose to move this article to Composite aircraft. Comments/votes welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I have two reasons for this proposal:
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You can search the flightglobal archives on phrases, although noise also gets returned - I see your point about parasite drag. I have not had time for a thorough search, but a quick look at "composite aircraft" found:
All those date from 1937-1944. The larger craft is invariably the "carrier", I could see no term for the smaller (other than "upper" as opposed to "lower" for the carrier). The use of Parasite in this context doesn't seem to make an appearance until the 1950's. I unearthed one "parasite aircraft" and one "parasite fighter" before I had to stop and write this. More to follow, hopefully. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few more references:
Meanwhile I have now stumbled across yet another meaning in the Flight archives for "composite aircraft", giving three in all:
If we could find an alternative name for the first of these, that might be a better title for the main article. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The three articles parasite aircraft, composite aircraft and captive carry cover essentially the same topic - aircraft conjoined in flight. They do perhaps discuss from very slightly different viewpoints, but I feel there would be a benefit in having these discussed in one single place. Anxietycello ( talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is a parasite aircraft? Some questions:
Much of this article discusses composite aircraft types comprising mother ship and parasites or jockeys, e.g. the whole section on Examples of parasitic aircraft combinations. Should this material be moved across to the composite aircraft article? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747-8 the "747 AAC" was an aircraft Boeing considered making that would carry 10 "microfighters". 98.127.119.21 ( talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of the last entries in the list of parasite "aircraft" are unmanned drones / missiles.
Q-2C Firebee, fire practice target drone D-21, reconnaissance drone Pegasus, satellite launcher X-43 Hyper-X, research drone White Knight/X-37, research drone
I wonder whether it is a good idea to include non-manned aircraft/drones/research model aircraft as the line between them and missiles is small (e.g. the Luftwaffe's Mistral programme, or the USSR's MiG 19 based air launched anti-shipping missiles). If unmanned aircraft/research models/drones/largeish missiles are to be included as parasite aircraft there are very many dropped unmanned research "aircraft" not included at present - basically only post war US types are in the list above. Some agreement as to boundaries is probably also a good idea. Winstonwolfe 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Further to the above, I suggest boundary issues as to when drones/missiles count as aircraft are impossible to negotiate if we let in small remote controlled targets like the Firebee, satellite launching rockets like the Pegasus and research models like the X-43 as "parasite aircraft".
I suggest all non manned "aircraft" should be deleted from the list of parasite aircraft. That would be:
DC-130/Q-2C Firebee, C-130 based drone
Lockheed D-21/M-21, for high-speed reconnaissance, based upon the SR-71 Blackbird (1963)
L-1011/Pegasus, for satellite launches (1990)
B-52/X-43 Hyper-X, a hypersonic research test article
White Knight/X-37, for DARPA's spaceplane project
If you disagree, post reasons under :-). Winstonwolfe 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I assumed it was supposed to become an exhaustive lsit of parasite aircraft. Leaving aside the Zvenos, do you know of any manned examples not on the list?
Possibly a different section could be added to include those listed above, noting that these are examples of similar ideas or boundary cases, I don't know that the inspiration for unmanned drones or air launched space vehicles resulted from parasite aircraft, so I'm a little uncomfortable with "where the concept could go". If a drone section is included examples such as the German Mistel or Russian KS-1 Kometa / AS-1 Kennel, and Kh-20 (AS-3 Kangaroo) aircraft sized missles - and the unmanned Migs dropped in testing the idea.
Incidentally I understood it was Felixstowe, with an s, as it was named after the seaplane station (and port) of that name. Winstonwolfe 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the origin of the term? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The term 'parasite' is ridiculous for this use. In biology, a parasite is something that hurts the host. It is also generally implied that 'parasites' are not being hosted willingly..
Aircraft that are based and launched from other aircraft are not 'hurting' the host, they are assisting and cooperating for a shared goal. In biology a more appropriate term would be mutualism or symbiosis. Yes they take up space and use more fuel from the larger aircraft, but this could be said about any equipment, ordinance, or people carried by any aircraft.. 'Parasite aircraft' is a dumb term that should be replaced. As far as I can tell, this is not a widely used or accepted term, but it appears that some Wikipedia editors are trying really hard to make it seem as if it is.. AnswerManDan ( talk) 03:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The image File:MM Short Mayo Composite scan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't manned missles such as the Baka bomb qualify as parasitic aircraft even if they were on one-way suicide missions? Bachcell ( talk) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My references mostly refer to "composite" aircraft - often these do not use the term "parasite". I also think that approach would lead to a more useful article. Therefore I propose to move this article to Composite aircraft. Comments/votes welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I have two reasons for this proposal:
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You can search the flightglobal archives on phrases, although noise also gets returned - I see your point about parasite drag. I have not had time for a thorough search, but a quick look at "composite aircraft" found:
All those date from 1937-1944. The larger craft is invariably the "carrier", I could see no term for the smaller (other than "upper" as opposed to "lower" for the carrier). The use of Parasite in this context doesn't seem to make an appearance until the 1950's. I unearthed one "parasite aircraft" and one "parasite fighter" before I had to stop and write this. More to follow, hopefully. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few more references:
Meanwhile I have now stumbled across yet another meaning in the Flight archives for "composite aircraft", giving three in all:
If we could find an alternative name for the first of these, that might be a better title for the main article. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The three articles parasite aircraft, composite aircraft and captive carry cover essentially the same topic - aircraft conjoined in flight. They do perhaps discuss from very slightly different viewpoints, but I feel there would be a benefit in having these discussed in one single place. Anxietycello ( talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is a parasite aircraft? Some questions:
Much of this article discusses composite aircraft types comprising mother ship and parasites or jockeys, e.g. the whole section on Examples of parasitic aircraft combinations. Should this material be moved across to the composite aircraft article? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747-8 the "747 AAC" was an aircraft Boeing considered making that would carry 10 "microfighters". 98.127.119.21 ( talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)