Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
97203 loss
editLake 1992 sugest that under the terms of the lease agreement Australia paid £2.7 million compensation for the crashed aircraft. The article is not that clear where it mention the lost P-3 and I presume that this payment wasnt made but the article needs a tweak to clarify what actually happened. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article notes that the cost of the F-4 was written off against that of an Australian P-3. The source doesn't give a dollar figure, but notes that it was a favourable exchange for the US. There wasn't a financial transaction (and Australia had long-since stopped using pounds by the early 70s). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- In response to this edit, is the source talking about $US 54 million or $A 54 million? Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good question the book doesnt make it clear but as it was published in the UK and US it possibly be American Dollars. Other figures in dollars are $34 million for the two-year lease and $12 million for subsequent years if the lease was extended, not sure why the pound figure but as a British book I suspect it may be British pounds. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
24 or 23?
editRepairs to the RAAF's F-111Cs were undertaken from late 1971, and all 24 were accepted on 15 March 1973
However, one had already crashed. Had it been replaced, hence 24, or should the figures be 23? Hamish59 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dont think any of the F-111s had crashed before 1973. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies, MilborneOne, I was confusing F111s and F4s. Sigh. Hamish59 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
wrong picture
editThe picture labeled "Two of the RAAF's F-4E Phantoms at RAAF Base Edinburgh in 1971" shows a pig, not a F-4. Pleas fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmaldia (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530233931/http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/publications/Details/431/From-Controversy-to-Cutting-Edge.aspx to http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Publications/Details/431/From-Controversy-to-Cutting-Edge.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)