Not quite sure why we need a page for every airplane.

If we do in fact need them, we can add them as necessary. -simon

This page is getting too big, and a bit messy. I feel that this page could get simplified a bit if each aircraft is given its own page. In addition, having one page per aircraft would allow the aircraft's maintainer to include how-to's as well. -Ampere

Ok, fair enough. My gripe is it ruins the flow and noone can browse without viewing every page - a chore. I also believe this will lead to stagnation - ie. the whole reason I combined them in the first place. Well, time will tell and changing it is not too difficult if need be. Thanks for the changes so far! -Simon

I think each aircraft should have its own page for extended content, the operator's manual (perhaps just a link or links), specs, history, images, etc. The index page could have a photo and a title and description for each aircraft to give an overview. --Sek

I have started setting up a bugzilla installation locally, it will feature categories for all major FlightGear subsystems/components (FDMs, Sound, Input etc), as well as for base package related contents (scenery tiles, textures etc): how about providing a separate entry for each individual aircraft, too? That way, aircraft maintainers could easily keep track of all bugs and missing features. What do you think?--FlightZilla 17:56, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

Redundant Page?

Currently, this page seems to be equal to [1] , which is also a much more flexible way to maintain the list of aircraft currently under development.