Talk:Lockheed XF-104 Starfighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

AFD

Strongly disagree with the tag or statement. This is not even the way to ask for a discussion, you do it here on the talk page. I would not like to have this article disappear or be merged and lose its uniqueness. FWIW Bzuk 22:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC).

BillCJ said the same and stated that AFD nomination is a last resort. I have just been reading through the AFD process which says as much. Also noted whilst there that as far as I know this article meets all the WP guidelines and apart from needing some footnotes perhaps in places is technically correct. I was hoping to use referenced quotes from Kelly Johnson and another from Col Gabby Gabreski who has his own article on WP with regard to the type of fighter pilots wanted after Korea. There is obviously a limit to where you can go with variants but I did feel there was a genuine gap here. The XF-104 was innovative in its smaller design features, it apparently was the first aircraft to feature a centralised warning panel with master caution lights instead of random lights dotted round the cockpit and other ergonomics like an undercarriage lever shaped like a wheel to help the pilot spot the right lever. Both these features are used in the F-4 as I worked on them for many years as groundcrew. All stuff I was hoping to add (and may still be able to). Boundary layer control must have been very new technology then if not close to being the first. There is obviously a limit to the length an article can be and I have a feel for what that is now by looking at all the other aircraft pages. I took care to use the aviation template and follow the rules. I have all the correct reference material, just a matter of time to polish things. Thanks for your support Nimbus227 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• User is apparently now withdrawing the AFD nomination Nimbus227 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It does not matter much now anyway. The overwelming consensus is to not delete it. -Fnlayson 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Good news indeed, there is obviously a growing problem with AFD's (100+ per day) and looking at most of the 'one liners' posted it must be a tiresome task for whoever has to sort it out, just seems to me that something went astray with the process for the XF-104. Bridge, water, under! Nimbus227 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      • AFD tag has been removed, just a 'suggest merge with F-104' tag remains. Nimbus227 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we leave the merge tag for a few days, but I don't think it will gain a consensus to merge. Most of the comments on the AFD were for a straight keep, tho merge really was just an add-on suggestion by several editors. I don't anticipate that changing much. THere is plenty of unique content to warrent keeping this page. - BillCJ 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag has gone now, very happy. Nimbus227 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The -104 was hardly the first aircraft with ergonomic (intuitively shaped) controls. Many aircraft had for years had flap handles shaped like a small flap and gear levers shaped like a wheel and tire. I don't have a citation, but I have flown many of them.173.62.11.254 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"mounted slightly proud of the fuselage"

What does that mean? It might be good to reword that in laymans terms. In fact some review of the article for other places where things are in aviation speak might be good. But I think this is a very good article. I don't know what the Aviation Project article eval standards are but my outsider's view is that this is a "B" not a "Start". ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I changed 'proud' to 'clear' although I struggled for another word. It means that the intakes were slightly separate from the fuselage unlike a Mirage perhaps which I think uses the fuselage skin as the inner face of the inlet duct. A drawing would be easier to explain it. The word proud in this sense means 'slightly above' or 'sticking out from' where flush (as in flush rivets) would mean level with the surface. Probably terms that an engineer would recognise but maybe not a layman as you say. I will have a look through for other words or phrases like this. Thanks for your support BTW, hope to do some more work on the article. Nimbus227 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Proud" in this sense is not an aviation term. It is a Britishism. (Briticism?)173.62.11.254 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am British but created this article in American English, please forgive me if I didn't get it 100% right first time. The terminology was changed eight years ago, I don't understand the need to drag it up. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a new user trying to answer all the comments without regard to when they were written. It happ sometimes. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions from testing

I don't know much about the Starfighter. But it looks like there should be some concluding remarks about the XF-104's testing. Were design changes made to the tail and/or gun following the crashes? This info will help it tie into the production F-104. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I can add that when I find the right citations. It certainly surpassed performance predictions, have the figures somewhere. Apart from the longer fuselage for the J-79 I don't think Lockheed changed much between the XF-104 and the YF-104 which is where the changes did start to happen like the addition of the ventral fin, then much later upwards ejecting seats and the bigger fin from the 'B' model two seater which stayed with the design to the end. These changes would be better mentioned in the main F-104 article. I don't think they investigated stalls and spinning thoroughly until the YF-104A and then found the 'pitch up'problems which is interesting i.e. why did they not test this at the prototype stage? Did Lockheed know and prefer not to mention it? Don't know about the gun, will have to read that article but I assume they improved it!! Have done a lot of tidying just now and wiki linking of technical terms after the point made earlier. Also wary of this article becoming too long so am trying to shorten the text by removing surplus words whilst adding relevant info at the same time which has to be a good thing. Cheers Nimbus227 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the white space, was not sure quite how to do it and was tempted to fill it with text, glad I did not. Nimbus227 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the info. I would assume they just did not think spin & stall testing was important or simply planned to do it later. I only mentioned the cannon because of the gun problem that led to the 2nd XF-104's crash. I could see a change to decrease the risk of that happening again. -Fnlayson 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I just typed in some positive conclusions from testing from one source but another (probably more accurate) is more negative about performance and handling, I will use that and put it right. Also just read that the gun misfire was caused by excessive heat in the gun bay, a round swelled up,jammed and exploded so not the gun's fault, learning all the time.

Another negative was the low internal fuel capacity, when they stretched the rear fuselage to fit the J-79 they also stretched the nose to get more fuel in. All good stuff. Nimbus227 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pressurisation

The last source states that neither aircraft had pressurisation equipment to save weight and complexity which would account for the pilots wearing pressure suits at relatively low altitudes but the same source gives loss of cabin pressure as a cause of Number 2's accident? Have to get to the bottom of that contradiction somehow.Nimbus227 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I think that it would be better if the pages (and/or chapters) in the notes were added to make verification easier. Snowman 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, done. Cheers Nimbus227 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Starfighter name

I hope this doesn't seem like a silly question, but was the name "Starfighter" given to the XF-104 from the start, or just to the F-104? --Red Sunset 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowldege it was from the start, but I'm not sure. We could move the page to XF-104 Starfighter, but the creator may have had a reason for his, and we'll see what he says. As long as the "Stafighter" name is accurate for the XF-104, I'm OK with mving it, but OK with it staying here too. - BillCJ 21:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In the last 20-30 years popular names have been not been given out or made official until they were producing the production versions or rolled out the first one. But things were different back then (Phantom, Banshee & Voodoo were McAir names). -Fnlayson 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to do something on that subject which was at the back of my mind. I do have a reference somewhere about the name. It was given the designation XF-104 and the name came later, initially StarFighter then Star Fighter then Starfighter in the Lockheed tradition (like TriStar). The Lockheed factory staff magazine at the time was called the Lockheed Star. I have no reference as to who came up with the name (although I am sure that I have seen it, total memory loss sadly). The photo in the infobox has 'Lockheed XF-104' on the nose, have seen photos of YF-104A with 'Starfighter' on them. The 'G' model was called Super Starfighter by Lockheed but it did not last. I'm sure there is a Lockheed logo available. Cheers Nimbus227 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I know it's a small point, but it would affect some of the wording in the article. Perhaps a brief mention of the proposed names could be made? --Red Sunset 21:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Will definately try to add something, must be linked to 'Shooting Star', 'Starfire' etc have to read up on those type histories. I think the wording in the XF-104 article should be ok as it was not known as 'XF-104 Starfighter' AFAIK. Just found a great photo of Kelly Johnson sitting in XF-104 No 1 in my archive, might try to get permission to use it along with the mock-up photo but I've never had any response from Lockheed to past enquiries.Nimbus227 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo in the infobox does not say 'XF-104', just 'Lockheed' from a larger photo I have, sorry. It seems that this paintwork was stripped and changed to 'Lockheed XF-104' I would guess at the time the USAF started to fly it. I think for the time being I will remove reference to the Starfighter name in the text until it is clarified.Nimbus227 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• As an update on this I have scoured my references and still can't find anything although I am sure I have seen a reference to naming, I would dearly like to know myself. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail linking to a set of XF-104 photographs, this image clearly shows the name 'Starfighter' on the nose. The aircraft is the first prototype '786' from another photo in that set but no date is given, it would be a later photo as it is operating from a hard runway instead of the desert at Edwards. Not much but something showing the name being used (and we can't use photos as reliable sources, I've asked before!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Lockheed XF-104

On 19 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lockheed XF-104, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 10:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I copied the above entry over from my talk page, amazing how the article has gone from AFD to DYK on the WP front page in two days! Very pleased. Nimbus227 11:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you did a fine job in editing and this is fully deserved. Bzuk 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, hope to make it better in time. Just been reading an arbitration matter, unnecessary waste of time and effort IMO. Nimbus227 13:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with possible image upload

I wonder if experienced editors can help here, I have two photographs that would be very relevant to this article but am concerned about copyright issues. I believe they were both downloaded from a former version of Lockheed's website circa 2003 but do not appear to be available now. One photo is of the XF-104 wooden mock-up and the other is of Kelly Johnson sitting in FG-786, I would assume that they were both taken by Lockheed. I read about 'non free use' images and that there is a case for them to be allowed because new photos can not be taken (i.e. Both XF-104's destroyed and Kelly Johnson died in 1990). I would appreciate some advice on this. Many thanks Nimbus227 15:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd put down Lockheed Martin's web site as the source and add time frame. Someone might could narrow it down better looking at the images. You should be able to justify fair use for them in this article (can only be used in 1 article). See Image:747_flight_attendants.jpg, Image:Dc10_j017575.jpg and Image:B-1R_concept.jpg for some examples. -Fnlayson 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, they are good examples of the same kind of 'problem'. The worse that can happen is that the images are deleted or disallowed so perhaps I should be bold, upload them in good faith using the correct templates. Nimbus227 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a reasonable course of action, go ahead. Bzuk 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
      • Mock-up photo is uploaded and placed in to the articleNimbus227 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Johnson image has been disputed as 'fair use' but not the other, I provided an explanation as required. Can anyone see what the problem is or if the reasons given can be improved?Nimbus227 10:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who has been helping with commas, full stops (periods?!) spelling and other formatting, it is really getting there and I think getting close to the standard of other articles. Photo of Kelly Johnson sitting in FG-786 uploaded.Nimbus227 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

The inclusion of both the English Electric Lightning and Sukhoi Su-15 as comparable can be debated. Whereas the early-1950s XF-104 and F-104 interceptor series could be characterized as "lightweights" and based on a single J79, the two behemoths were twin-engined and could hardly be described as in the same era as the F-104 at least in the origin of the design concepts. I would suggest the Dassault Mirage III better represents a small, interceptor of the same vintage as the XF-104. FWIW Bzuk 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

• Yes, good point. I think somone else added those entries. Will have a look, should be a few closer types to chose from. Nimbus227 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Have removed the Su-15 and Lightning and added F-11, Mirage III, F-5 and SR.53. As a sidenote the Chief Project Engineer of the SR.53 was a very good friend of mine until his very recent death and an extremely interesting character worthy of a WP article of his own. Nimbus227 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

English/American spelling

I don't want to cause a fuss here but I notice that the clearly British/English writing of the article is being slowly changed in to American English. The guidelines in the Manual of Style is that you should not have both forms in an article. Am I wrong? If I was adding to an article written in American English I would abide by the same rule and use US spellings. Any commentsNimbus227 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is any convention or prescribed procedure to identify "voice" but it appears that the topic generally decides the use of American or British English. In the case of the Concorde article, there is a consistent use of British spellings and idioms, whereas the XF-104 is a candidate for American English and its variations throughout. FWIW Bzuk 17:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

The usual rule that we follow on WP:AIR, as stated in the MOS, is that articles on primarily-US aircraft/topics take US spelling; artilces on primarily-British (and usually pan-European) topics take British spelling (and Commonwealth countries their variants of English); all other topics follow the rule you mentioned. It's honestly not big a deal to most of us, but to be consistent, we should go with US spelling here. That goes for me to, as an American, if I create a page on a British aircraft/topic, I would be expected to use British English; of course, I'm sure I'd have some lapses, though I was educated for a time in COmmonwealth English, so I might do better on this than some AMericans. I hope that makes sense to you, tho no one expects you to have known this before writing the page. It's just another one of those Wiki-rules in which it taks time to learn all the nuances. But, for the most part, this system works pretty well - other than the US editors (not me!) who keep changing "tyre" to "tire" on the Concorde page. Note to Concordians: The "the" here goes with "page", not "Concorde" ;) - BillCJ 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ya mon, you 'merican? 'thought you a Cari-Bean! FWIW, enjoying the ARBCOM? Bzuk 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

• Eh, I grew up partially in the Cari-Bean, but I'm a typical American mongrel of mixed Euro descent. But no probs, as I still have Carib behavoir traits, like my love of good (and even not-so-good) arguments! :) Those being the louder, the better? Have I got a dance partner for you! Bzuk 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

• What Bill wrote. I'm probably did the most recent US/Commonwealth spelling fix to this article. I thought it mainly used US spelling plus the fact it is a US product. -Fnlayson 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

Well I'm sure this problem has cropped up before, being an Englishman living in England (but I don't drink tea!) you can understand that these spellings look very strange to me and I don't mean that in a 'snobby' way. I found the guidelines in the MOS but not in WP:AIR although it might well be there. It seems to me that if this convention is to continue then a small icon placed at the top of the article denoting which form of English it is written in would prevent confusion and extra work later on, does that seem sensible? How does it work with aircraft that are not British or American? Perhaps someone could start a clarifying policy discussion somewhere. OTOH we could use Italian English....(watching that one with interest) Nimbus227 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• You know that's a very good idea. I often forget whether there is an Americanism in play and that seems a sensible approach to have an icon or other discrete notation or tag that quickly identifies the use of language. You sure you're British? English? UKish? Great Britainish? FWIW, Italyish? don't get me started on that issue! BTW, I is a Canajan so I have the worst of all US/Brit speak rolled up in one. [:¬∆ Bzuk 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

• I like the icon/tag idea as well. My schooling was all US spelling and my spelling is often poor. Interesting that a lot of aviation books I have are published by non-US publishers and use Commonwealth spelling. No big deal to me, except for 'aeroplane'. ;) -Fnlayson 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian, Eh?!! I am definately English, if you note the heading 'pressurisation' is spelt 'correctly' above!!!

Hey, no big deal but since we are striving for a standard we should at least know what that standard is. Aeroplane and aerodrome are not used much here nowadays, I use aircraft and airfield usually. Cheers Nimbus227 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelt? Amongst, betwixt all the verbiage, diatribe of the British anachronisms, colloquialisms and idioms, I have tried to use modern conventional usage for word choices, at least fortnightly or is that forthrightly? Irregardless or regardless! Nonetheless! [:¬∆ Bzuk 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

I say chaps, I also agree that the icon/tag is a spiffing idea, and that the XF-104 article should employ American-English spelling; however, one simply cannot help using the "Queen's English" don't you know. After all, we invented the language. (If that doesn't get a reaction nothing will!) I concur with Nimbus regarding the use of "aircraft" (NOT "aircrafts" if you know what I mean) instead of "aeroplane", and especially disagree with the use of "plane" which has additional meanings. As a Canajan Bill, do you not have a little Franglais to contribute with? --Red Sunset 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll through this in before we get accused of going off topic: We Americans have no problem with the British having "invented" the English language. In fact, you've re-inveneted in numerous times in the last 1500 years, and seem to berate us Americans because we haven't kept up with the latest reinventions, and have done some reinvetning of our own! And thos poor Canadians are caught between their parent and older sibling, with their cousins in Quebec causing even more trouble by insisting on French names for even Latin words. (Last time I looked, Nova Scotia was not an English word, yet it has a French translation, Nouvelle-Écosse on their their license plates, but not the corresponding English translation New Scotland. Poor Canadians indeed! - BillCJ 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

At this juncture, in assigning points, BillBC and Jefson has accurately fractured Mericanisms, while Robset and Nimbn*tz has smooshed Britspeak, I'm gonnahavetacallon the Great MAurY to balance the obviously misinformed neighbours abroad as well as broad neighbours below (I've seen your SUVs, youse guys must all weigh in at Moby Dick waistlines) to restore the God-given rights of Canadjans to butcher language. [: ¬p| Bzuk 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Jeff and Ah both live in the Mid-South, so Ah'm sure we're quaht capable of butcherin' the language to a degree that would make any Englishman pull his hair out faster 'an a scalded dog fleein' a chiken coop! - BillCJ 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you got 200 words for "snow"? [:¬∆ Bzuk 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

No, just 200 words for rain. ;) Btw, we only have one word for snow down here: Flurries. PS. I'll offer to host this off-subject diversion on my talk page. A little light-hearted fun is good for helping to deal with Wiki-stress, esp in the middle of an ARBCOM! - BillCJ 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeya der! FWIW, I yam startinga lisst ov "words to live by!" Bzuk 00:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

I'll drink to that BillCJ, a little humour goes a long way. "Robset 'n Numbnutz"? (No insult intended Nimbus227) Sounds like the name of a double-act to me Bzuk (Please don't say clowns). BTW Bill(Z), I do believe your English is improving! --Red Sunset 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) That's Numbn*tz, Robset, BillBC and BIZerk, inglish idjets on the loose! Send in the clones! FWIW, read BillCJ's talk page fur mre wrds ta lve by! Bzuk 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

No worries, I like a good laugh. Just caught my first vandal and sorted it out. Nimbus227 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Language notification

• (Split Nimbus's comment for new heading, as old section was getting awferly long. - BillCJ 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Had another thought on the language icon idea, it could be placed on the talk page so that it does not clutter the articles. Nimbus227 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, using the talk page is a good thought. But rather than a simple Icon, we could use a template. It's possible there is one out there already, as I seem to recall having seen something like that in the back of my mind. It could go with all the toehr header templates, and maybe even incorporated in the WPAIR or MILHIST templates, if not it's own separate header. That would definitely be worth looking into. If others want to follow this thread, I'd sugguest copying this sub-section to WT:AIR, and we can get some further input there. - BillCJ 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was getting long! Good idea to put an entry in WT:AIR, I will do it now Nimbus227 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

Citations are needed for:

• The third paragraph of "Testing and evaluation"
• The fourth paragraph of "Testing and evaluation"
• The fourth paragraph of "Design"

Also, I've found that the first "Testing and evaluation" paragraph has a bit of copy vio from the book Experimental & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters page 168. Some rewriting is needed. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing images?

Three images have gone missing without explanation, Lockheed X-7, Douglas X-3 and a good image of the XF-104 on Roger's Lake at speed. The first two are very relevant and gave encyclopaedic value, I can not understand why they were removed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the last one had been deleted. The reason why I removed the former two is because given the relatively small size of "Development", there's only so much which can be accommodated. I thought the most valuable and worthy image is the sketch drawings by Kelly Johnson. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This image has not been deleted and was in use in the article. The reason that the text appears compact with no room for images now is that the sub-headers were removed, I could not understand that either. If the desired effect was not to have the sub-headers show in the table of contents a limiting template could have been applied or a lower header level used, or even just bold them with a preceding semi-colon. The 'copyvio', if there was one, did not come from me BTW as I don't have that source (apart from the fact that I carefully reword text when I create articles to avoid this problem!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

Could be just me, but I've never heard wing aspect ratio--the ratio of the span to the average chord--expressed as a percentage. Do you mean 3.4:1, which is how it is usually stated?173.62.11.254 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The percentage is for thickness to chord, not aspect ratio. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)