Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed YF-22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLockheed YF-22 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
June 4, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 29, 2019, and September 29, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Photos

[edit]

There are some good PD iamges at Defense Imagery.mil, including a couple of in-flight shots. - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lockheed YF-22/GA1

Supercruise speed

[edit]

The Mach 1.58 supercruise speed is given by multiple sources, including Aronstein's book. Also, I don't see why we need to round to one decimal place. The F-22's supercruise speed is also given in two decimal places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.145.163 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a source. Now wasn't that easy? - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Y"?

[edit]

The "YF" designation should be explained. The 'F' is obvious (Fighter), but the 'Y' is not. I asked an AF Col. what the 'Y' meant, and he said that it simply means "one step beyond 'X'" (experimental). Of course, that would not qualify as a proper WP source. Can somebody find a source and clarify this in the article?  —Thanks in advance, E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design evolution images

[edit]

The F-22 design evolution articles on Code One Magazine (part 1[1] and part 2[2]) has a wealth of images, especially of the proposals from Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics during the RFI, the initial submissions for the RFP, and the design evolution into the YF-22 and then into the F-22. However, I couldn't find whether or not these images are free to use, and as such, is there a way to post low-resolution non-free images in the article? It would greatly help visualize the descriptions in this article.

  1. ^ Hehs, Eric (1998). "Design Evolution of the F-22, Part 1". Code One. Lockheed Martin.
  2. ^ Hehs, Eric (1998). "Design Evolution of the F-22, Part 2". Code One. Lockheed Martin.

Steve7c8 (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted downscaled thumbnail versions of the images for illustrative purposes. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fnlayson @ZLEA @Zaereth Do you know what the process of using non-free images are? I've seen articles use them (typically media articles) and typically they're downscaled thumbnails without any higher resolution, but I'm not familiar with the process for using them. If that's not possible then a lot of images here will have to be removed until I can get express permission from Lockheed or if they're uploaded on something like DVIDS. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Steve7c8 The guideline for using non-free images in an article can be found at WP:FAIRUSE. I don't have too much experience working with non-free images, so I don't know that I would be of much help. I will say that the article does not list the original sources or copyright holders of the images, so that would complicate the "Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material" part of WP:FAIRUSE. - ZLEA T\C 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA the Wikimedia page for these images do have the source of the material listed. Do they need to be given in the caption as well in for "fair use"? Steve7c8 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not the best person to guide you through the fair use process. You might try the WP:Village pump, where you are likely to find users with more experience with fair use. - ZLEA T\C 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

[edit]

Lockheed YF-22

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No suggestion that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria; GAR is not peer review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. The article has nearly doubled in size, so I would like other editors to review my work to make sure it's still up to standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Steve7c8, marking my spot here, will post comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-class assessment

[edit]

Lockheed YF-22

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Lockheed YF-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)
  • The details in the Notes section require references
  • Mullin (1992) is not used
  • fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"
  • Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
  • I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.
  • fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
  • I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
  • I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
  • Fixed.
  • Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
  • Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
  • Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.
Steve7c8 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hawkeye7, is the source review a pass now or not after Steve7c8's changes? Matarisvan (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Steve7c8, saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan, do you still intend on reviewing this article for A-class? Steve7c8 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Steve7c8, my comments:
Matarisvan (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. Also, Federation of American Scientists wasn't the original publisher of the F-22 test pilot report, it was originally a paper presented at a Society of Experimental Test Pilots conference, and the FAS link is where it can be found. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker

[edit]

Hiking the AT. Connection may be sporadic. Apologies for any curtness or disorganization of replies.

  • Lede should state that Lockheed was the prime.
  • US or U.S.? Consistency needed.
  • The distinction between WP:GENREF and "Additional sources" is not usually seen on well-developed articles. Might be better to merge the Bibliography and Additional sources.
  • Personally my eyes tend to glaze over when an article contains too many dates. Maybe only mention the exact date if its important (and it's going to be on the test) Also does Halloween need to wikilinked?
  • Would prefer less passive voice (e.g. not the Lockheed team was announced by Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice as the winner of the ATF competition.)
  • delta wings and pilot-induced oscillation are wikilinked only on the second mention. wl "FY", "S-duct", "thrust-vectoring". YF119 and YF120 overlinked. Image captions could stand to have more wls. It isn't considered overlooking.
  • Advise adding brief in-text description of the Packard Commission (e.g. that it was a commission of president Reagan.).
  • "SR-71-like" needs an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH
  • Re: the accident: were any design issues identified and corrected as a result?
  • Pratt & Whitney and General Electric had earlier been awarded contracts to develop the propulsion systems with the designations YF119 and YF120 Respectively? These engines were requirements for the selected aircraft? Furnished as government-furnished equipment? How and when was it determined to go forward with the YF119?
  • Give nationality of SR-71/YF-12. Lockheed as designer seems relevant especially given that they proposed something like it.
  • The top four proposals, later reduced to two, would proceed with Dem/Val. They selected four, then down selected to two? Who were the four? Or they had plans to select four contenders, but decided to only choose two?
  • Because the requirement for flying prototypes was a late addition due to political pressure, awkward. consider rephrasing.
  • The seven bids were submitted in July 1986. Were Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas the only teams that submitted proposals? Which teams submitted more than one proposal? Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a proposal or proposals? Article makes it sound like Lockheed was the only contractor that responded during the concept development. True? Mention that Lockheed developed the F-117.
  • Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed proposal's system engineering volume for the top rank. confused about what this means. Mullin says Lockheed got the contract for its manufacturing capabilities? Implying Northrop did not?
  • Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design, meaning more clear if this is split in two sentences.
  • Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure Try: "Furthermore, under Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy".
  • Were there any differences in the stealth coating between the YF-22 and F-22?
  • However, much of the scrutiny fell on Lockheed's Configuration 090P Scrutiny from whom?

Schierbecker (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added statement that Lockheed is prime contractor
  • Standardized on "U.S."
  • As far as having two sections for generic references and additional sources, I think the latter is for works that's not directly cited in the body, but are useful further reading.
  • I'll the importance of specific dates for other editors to judge, I personally don't think it's too cumbersome and having month and year is pretty generic, I feel.
  • For PAV-2 crash, the issue is that the flight control system was immature and not ready for low-altitude demonstration flights. The YF-22s never flew after that and the F-22 air vehicle is also markedly different.
  • The ATF engine effort was a separate parallel effort that pre-dated the ATF itself by a few years, and during Del/Val it was brought under the control of the ATF SPO. The ATF engine was also being competed which is why there were two YF-22s and YF-23s, one for each engine option. The winner of the engine competition would be announced alongside the ATF winner.
  • The ATF SPO had originally planned to select 4 companies as finalists for Dem/Val, but this was judged too expensive and unnecessary, so they reduced it to two.
  • I added the seven bidding companies as a note.
  • System engineering, which involves your plans for conducting trade studies and requirements reviews, was an area that not many companies focused on at the time, but Lockheed did. It was only after being selected that the companies found out how much the ATF SPO valued system engineering plans in their proposals.
  • Scrutiny on Configuration 090P from the design team.
Steve7c8 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ATF request for information (RFI) was sent out to the aerospace industry Passive voice. "The [SERVICE BRANCH] published the ATF RfI..." would be more appropriate.
  • Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft. I take it that the Navy was reluctant to join the Air Force program? This could be more clear.
  • "red-teamed" as a verb is confusing. Consider ways to rephrase. Alton D. Slay led the red team for Lockheed or the government? Not sure what "Systems engineering volume" means.
  • stealth requirements were drastically increased passive voice again.
  • [CITY] comma [STATE] comma.
  • TBD. 173.243.167.206 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
    • Yes, the Navy was somewhat reluctant to join NATF due to their experience with the TFX (F-111B) in the 1960s.
    • Alton D. Slay served as an independent consultant to "red-team", or pick holes, the proposal, which contains many volumes, including one for the systems engineering plan.
    • Fixed.
    Steve7c8 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Schierbecker, hope you're ok on the AT what with the ongoing hurricane. Whenever you're free and well, could you add any other comments you may have or your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed most of her feedback and incorporated some of the suggestions. That said (and I accidentally left this out in my earlier reply), for some of her points where she asked for additional context or clarification, I feel those fit better in the Advanced Tactical Fighter article where I did expand on them. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, I think you should wait for another reviewer since we need 3 supports for promotion and we have 2 now. Schierbecker might not be able to comment for some time since she is in Appalachia which was hit hard this hurricane season, hopefully she is ok and is in all likelihood not getting internet service. Matarisvan (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in Vermont and safe. I appreciate the concern. :) In a bit of a tricky situation internet-wise. I'll be able to make short comments and see this review through though. More comments tomorrow.Schierbecker (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schierbecker, we're still waiting on your comments, but there's no rush if the adverse weather hasn't subsided. Matarisvan (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Can we have a footnote for note 1? Also: since it is in the lead, it ought to be in the body somewhere
  • "missileer" normally refers to a missile crew. I haven't seen it used this way before. Is it correct?
  • "Lockheed's design team, lead by Bart Osborne under its Skunk Works division" -> "lead" should be "led". Also: "under" is awkward here; suggest "of" or "from"
  • Link "supercruise", "thrust", "faceting", 'aerial refueling", "fleet air defense", "maiden flight", "radome"
  • "radar range testing at Helendale, California" -> Parenthetical comma after "California".
  • "resulting in engine thrust increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class" -> Delete "class"?
  • "Due to Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy joined the ATF program initially as an observer and in 1988 announced that it would procure a variant/derivative of the winning design as the NATF to replace the F-14." Hasn't this already been mentioned? Suggest moving "Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft.[8]" down here. Also: what was the reason/rationale for this Congressional pressure?
  • "The second YF-22A (PAV-2, s/n 87-0701, N22YX) with the P&W YF119 made its maiden flight on 30 October at the hands of pilot Tom Morgenfeld." -> Suggest "chief test pilot Thomas A. Morgenfeld"
  • "the Lockheed design was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF)" -> "NATF" has already been introduced above, albeit with a different definition. Resolve this.

Looks very good. Only a few issues to resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. A few notes:
  • I don't think the definition of faceting as defined in the main article is the same as for the design method for stealth aircraft.
  • I'm not sure where to incorporate note 1 in the body, since it occurred well well into EMD, while this article primarily covers the Dem/Val phase.
  • Missileer was how Lockheed described the CL-2016, per Hehs 1998.
Steve7c8 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Steve7c8 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_YF-22&oldid=1255300654"