Talk:Northrop YF-17/Archive 1

Archive 1

Metric

Anybody care to do the metric conversions???? :-)

YF-17 and Azarakhsh

The only released photos of the Azarakhsh shows an aircraft that looks like a slightly larger F-5F with bigger engine intakes. It looks nothing like the YF-17. Hatcat 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also - any reference for the Iranian role in YF-17 development? Hatcat 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes for the rewrite

Removed unsourced statements like the Iranian allegation above. Note that this article is about the prototype, not the vastly different production Hornet, and comparisons and comments about the latter are not germane to this article. --Mmx1 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Notes

I found two points for confusion in the section History:

1. History, 4th paragraph: "The two prototypes flew 288 test flights". Which two prototypes are meant? The YF-17 + YF-16 (which was mentioned in the previous sentence), or the two prototypes of YF-17 only?

2. History, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: "In August 1974, the Navy directed the Navy to make maximum use..." The double occurence of the Navy should be corrected.

On the Navy-Navy point, I beleive it was Congress that directed the Navy to look at the LWF. If I can find a good source, I'll try to correct and cite it. --BillCJ 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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 debate was move —METS501 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

YF-17 Cobra → Northrop YF-17 — Name in line with WP:AIR/PC]] naming conventions for US military aircraft with no official name - Company, designation. The "Cobra" name was used by Northrop for the P-530 design, but not the follow-on P-600, on which the YF-17 is based —BillCJ 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - per my nomination. - BillCJ 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support The YF-17 was never called the "Cobra" so a change in name is appropriate. Bzuk 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• YF-17 Cobra is the popular name... 132.205.44.134 22:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. It's a misnomer, as neither the USAF nor Nortrop ever called it that. - BillCJ 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's why I said it's the popular name. 132.205.44.134 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You may have a point here, when the mistaken nomenclature is utilized then perhaps the best away around this name flap is to simply rename the article, YF-17 "Cobra" and then provide a disclaimer within the article. Don Logan's book, Northrop's YF-17 Cobra (Schiffer Publishing, 1996), continues the eroneous but obviously popular use of this name.Now my vote is vacillating and you may have to put me down to "in the middle." IMHO Bzuk 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem including "Cobra" in the first line of the article and in the Infobox title, as that is a common convention for aircraft with unofficial names. But I do think it's best to not hav ethe name in the title at all. There is precedence, aa the F-111 page is titled General Dynamics F-111. "Aardvark" was actually made official during it's USAF retirement ceremony, and the name is listed in the Infobox Title field, and mentioend in the lead paragraph. Would that work for you in this case, BillZ? - BillCJ 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, good solution Bzuk 00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Request for more information

Nice article but when I got to the end I felt like it ended too early leaving me hanging. I recognize it is ranked as start class and here are some things I noticed that someone might expand:

• I wasn't sure that only two aircraft had been built but one of the links confirmed it. That point might could be clarified a bit.
• I would like to know what became of the two prototypes and when the project shut down? Perhaps a timeline of events?
• Where was it designed and built?

Thanks. Sdenny123 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• The pro types were used by the Navy as test beds for the F/A-18. One of them lived at the Western Museum of Aviation at Jack Northrop Field in Hawthorn, California the last time I was there. It had Navy markings. I used to visit it during lunch. I'll have to see if I can find a picture of it. Saltysailor (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Canted at 45 degrees?

The text states that the plane has "twin vertical stabilizers, canted at 45°" That 45° seems unlikely from a simple visual check unless the article meant that the 45° was the included angle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.112.3 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between YF-17 and P-series

This article starts off describing the P-300 and P-530, then suddenly starts talking about the YF-17. It then returns to talking about the P-series again, before starting another section about the LFW. I strongly suspect that the first mention of the YF-17 is either actually describing the P-series, or is leftover editing cruft that is supposed to be much further down the article. Can anyone comment? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. I moved some YF-17 design text down to explain P-600 = YF-17. That should take care of this. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)