Talk:McDonnell Douglas T-45 Goshawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Navy aircraft with one engine?

The Navy usually wants aircraft to have 2 engines for carrier operations for safety over water. I would guess that is not important for the non-combat T-45 trainer. Any other ideas? -Fnlayson 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not the first US Navy jet aircraft with one engine, remember F-16N or F-21A. All were used for training so your theory seems to be good. Piotr Mikołajski 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wasn't aware of those two. Seems like there was a 1 engine fighter or attack jet back in the '50s or '60s used by the Navy, but I can't remember what it was called. -Fnlayson 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Almost all US Navy carrier-based piston-engine fightes and bombers were single engined, as were the early jet fighters (F4D Skyray, F9F Panther/Cougar, F11F Tiger, F3H Demon, FJ Fury series, and of course the F-8 Crusader) and attack planes (A-4, A-7). THe only twin engine jets in that period were the FH Phantom, F2H Banshee, and F7U Cutlass, until the F-4 arrived, and the much-larger A-3 and A-5. THe A-7 was the last single-engine carrier-based planed produced fo the Navy. By that time, engines had become small enough and powerful enough that there wasn't as much of a weight penalty as with earlier types of engines. As to the T-45, it moslty operates in the Gulf of Mexico close to land, so the redundancy of two engines is not that big a factor. The twin-engine Alpha Jet was also a contestant for the T-45 program, but lost to the single-engine Hawk. - BillCJ 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• There were few older single engined jet aircraft - A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II, F-1 Fury, F-3 Demon, F-6 Skyray, F-8 Crusader, F-9 Cougar, F-11 Tiger. Piotr Mikołajski 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• My pre-1970s knowledge is thin. Appreciate the info and lesson. The F-8 was one I had in mind. It was latest to retire from Navy service (there abouts). -Fnlayson 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

I've added a short Operational history section and added some sentence to the Development section. Please review to see if it makes sense and doesn't skip needed details. Also, if you can add some details (sourced), that'd be great too. Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacement for T-2 Buckeye?

My understanding is this was originally intended to replace all T-2 Buckeyes in the training role, yet I believe there is still one wing/ base for training using the T-2. Can anyone add some information as to why? 74.214.40.40 22:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Could be a lot of things, like there's not enough T-45s yet or the T-2s are used differently. One thing is they can put a T-2 into a flat spin, while it's difficult to do in a T-45. In any event the T-2 is being phased out.[1] Maybe someone else knows more about this.. -Fnlayson 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Boeing T-45 Goshawk

McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997, so all T-45s since then have been Boeing products. 214 T-45s were delivered up to 31 December 2008 [2], the 100th T-45 was delivered on 20 January 1999 [3] so the majority of T-45s have been manufactured by Boeing, not McDD.Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas T-45 Goshawk → Boeing T-45 Goshawk – McDonnell Douglas was acquired by Boeing on 1 August 1997 and all T-45s produced since that date are Boeing products. A total of 221 T-45s were produced, McDD produced less than 100, while Boeing produced at least 121. The only operator, the US Navy, refers to Boeing as Contractor on its fact sheet here [4]. Like the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, originally developed and produced by McDD, but largely produced by Boeing, it should be renamed. Continuing to refer to the aircraft as the McDonnell Douglas T-45 is archaic and confusing Mztourist (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is the name the aircraft is most widely known as in the literature, the same reason we have McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet as McDD and not Boeing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please give some examples of the literature you are referring to that you believe establish WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously the US Navy and Boeing both refer to it as a Boeing product. On a quick search I can't find any recent books specifically on the T-45, but note that Janes indexes referred to it as the T-45 Goshawk (Boeing/Bae Systems) in 2004 and T-45(International) in 2009. Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the F/A-18 is a valid comparison as the last production F/A-18D was delivered in 2000, only 2-3 years after the Boeing-McDD merger/takeover, so the overwhelming majority were produced by McDD. Meanwhile the F/A-18E/F is rightly noted as a Boeing product. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am inclined to agree with Bushranger but do you per chance have any data to show that the aircraft is more commonly associated with Boeing.-Labattblueboy (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Really only what Boeing and the US Navy call it. It's not a high profile aircraft like the F-15E or the C-17 and there don't seem to be any recent books specifically about it, just mentions in Janes and aviation encyclopedias. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the live refs and links (other than the books which I don't have access to) on the page refer to Boeing.Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to show something because my google books comparison of the two names showed otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you post a link showing the comparison? I would expect that most books written solely about the T-45 were written when it was just entering production and so would refer to it as McDD product. As noted above Janes indexes referred to it as the T-45 Goshawk (Boeing/Bae Systems) in 2004 and T-45(International) in 2009. Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Google books: 131 hits for "McDonnell Douglas T-45 Goshawk"[5] and 51 hits for "Boeing T-45 Goshawk"[6].--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The general consensus on aircraft article titles does appear to lean toward listing thev original manufacturer, as long as they did a sizeable fraction of production. In addition to the F/A-18, there is the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon page for another notable example. - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange, given that you supported the change in 2011... The F/A-18 up to D is very clearly a McD,D while the E/F is a very different Boeing plane with a separate page. In relation to the F-16 as there is only 1 page it would be difficult to differentiate and GD produced a vast number of the early models. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That was nearly three years ago, when the general consensus wasn't quite so apparent to me as now. Plus I've realized since then that your numbers aren't always accurate. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

based on the comments on your talk page it seems that consensus is a very subjective concept. Please check the numbers for yourself, rather than implying bad faith on my part Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus by its very nature is subjective. And stop badgering me. You're the one who wants to have the page moved. If you can't provide specific yearly numbers to support your own claims, that's your problem, not mine. - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not badgering you, just inquiring about your change of view and your talk page and friends seem to provide the answer. You have questioned my numbers implying that they are misleading, but the approximate numbers based on Boeing press releases post merger were there for you to see in the earlier discussion. From Joe Baugher, McDD produced serial nos 163599/163658 [7], so 59 aircraft and serials 165057/165092 [8], so another 35, giving a total of 94 for McDD and all the rest are listed as Boeing T-45s, so 127 produced by Boeing Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Making comments over and over to every comment made by others is badgering, in my opinion, as is following others to their talk pages and butting in. And I was implying you were shoddy in finding your numbers, based on you numbers in the F-15E discussions, not assuming bad faith on your part. What does puzzle me is why you waited nearly 3 years to co m e back to this issue here when there was no opposition to moving it then. You waited too long, for whatever reason, and I changed my mind in the meantime. Your tough luck. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect some WP:CANVASS is going on and so checked your talk page and pointed out your inconsistency - which you chose to promptly delete. I returned to this issue because I had let it lie after the previous discussion on F-15E and reopened it to try to have a consistent approach on legacy McDD products. My "shoddy numbers" on F-15E was simply a lack of available sources and amounted to about 20 planes. OK so you've changed your mind, this Move discussion still has 6 days to run. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No one was canvassing. Dave discovered it either because he was watching the F-15E page himself or because of your comments here, which is how I find out. Quite ironic that you did your own "canvassing" in my case! LOL. - BilCat (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoting User talk:BilCat/archive17#Playground: Dave, he's at it again. Try to play nice ;) - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) and later: Ok, don't play nice. ;) - BilCat (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoting WP:CANVASS: "canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate" It was done with the intention of telling him to be nicer than he was to you on the F-15E talk page should he chose to enter the debate, which to this point he hasn't. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page comment "he's at it again" with a direct to this page sent to a partisan author appears to be Votestacking as defined in WP:CANVASS, while your later comment of "don't play nice" would seem to encourage further personal attacks on me from that author Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave my answer, and I stand by it, and the right to make comments as I see fit on my own talk page, within the bounds of civility, which those were. If that's not satisfactory to you, tough. In addition, you stated you supected canvassing was occurring, but on the basis of what? No one involved in that conversation has come here, so it seems to me you're just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. It's clear that AGF only gones one way with you. As I said, your own comments elsewhere probably brought more people to the F-15E conversation as an unintended consequence of your own badgering of other users than anything I've said anywhere. - - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:The Last Word Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:DICK - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Back at you Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move, the common name of this aircraft is still the name that includes McDonnell Douglas. This would be like calling a Lamborghini Countach a Volkswagen Countach just because Volkswagen bought Lamborghini. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your analogy is incorrect, Lamborghini is kept as a separate brand and production unit of VW and there has been no rebranding of Lamborghini products as VWs. In contrast, within a short time of the Boeing-McDD merger/takeover, all McDD aircraft that continued in production were rebranded as Boeings, such as the MD-95 to Boeing 717 and the C-17 Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, point taken. Though I would suggest that unlike the F-15 or F-18, which were outright developed by McDonnell Douglas, even as a variant of a BAE aircraft (and therefore less the offspring of McDonnell Douglas), the T-45 was still know under the McDonnell Douglas name for 16 years prior to Boeing's merger with MDD. And as Boeing has not significantly altered the design of the aircraft, it seems McDonnell Douglas is a better association with the T-45. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 02:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted, but Boeing actually did upgrade all the T-45As to T-45Cs. What about if the rename was Boeing/BAE T-45? Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As best I can determine, the Boeing upgrade consisted primarily of swapping in a glass cockpit and did not involve any redesign of the airframe. I would still use the McDonnell Douglas name for the general T-45 title unless there was an article about the T-45C specifically, in which case I can see using the Boeing/BAE T-45C name. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -as those above. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/t45/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)