The starships being discussed have warp drive nacelles, saucers, engineering hulls and various features like impulse engines and deflectors. The aircreaft I compared have an airfoils (wings), tailplanes, elevators, cockpits, and method of propulsion. If you object to the engine types, let's do prop to prop, jet to jet, fighter to fighter, airliner to airliner. A Spad and a P38. An F-80 and a F-117. A 707 and a Concorde. A YB-49 and an XB-70, or a B-47 and a B-1.
You're comparing totally different tech, a jet and a conventional plane. In trek terms, that'd be like comparing a warp driven starship with a garbage scow. The TOS ship and the TNG ship have similar function and capability, so you need to find a different analogy (like how different a Cessna is from a spad or fokker ... is it all that different?)
As different in lines and forms as the TOS ship and the D. Shall I continue hauling out examples?
Trot out as many as you like, but comparing a jet to a non airbreather is not a good call when you're doing it with 2 FTL starships that are both using the same pseudotech. METHOD OF PROPULSION ALONE is enough to make your comparison invalid; one is a jet, the other ain't, yet both of these fictitious space vessels are FTL starships (not an FTL starship and a NERVA- or ORION-style nuclear propulsion interplanetary vehicle.)