Talk:North American XF-108 Rapier

North American XF-108 Rapier 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
Date	Process	Result
July 29, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Armament Questions[edit]

Firstly, I'm puzzled by the armament data listed in this article. I do remember hearing that, when they were developing the XF-108, they had flirted with the idea of fitting the aircraft with 2 x 20mm cannon, and/or the provision to carry some 2.75" rockets. I don't remember reading anything about the aircraft carrying 4x20mm cannon. I also do not remember reading about the aircraft being fitted with the provision to be able to carry and release bombs.

Secondly, I have read that there was a variant of the GAR-9/AIM-47 that had folding fins, and I do remember hearing it was being designed during the XF-108's timeframe (Though I could be wrong, and it could have been developed during the YF-12 period, but I did read it was conceived during the XF-108 program). I've seen drawings which showed the aircraft carrying three missiles in the bay, however no folding fins were shown. Would the folding fins have allowed 4 to be carried? AVKent882 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any survivors?[edit]

What happened to the mock-up? Is it on display somewhere? Should be mentioned in the article.

Hmmm, you're right. IIRC I read that the mock-up did survive and ended up at the Smithsonian, but I'll have to track it down. Maury 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy?[edit]

This article states that the A-5 Vigilante incorporated a number of the design features and systems of the XF-108, but the A-5's article [1] makes no such connection. 24.115.82.38 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a connection, it will be established in the upcoming rewrite and I will make that connection clear in the A-5 Vigilante article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Did the F-108 have any FBW systems? I know the A3J/A-5 Vigilante did (they called it "electric flight" I believe but it's the same thing), it also had the all-moving tail, so I'm wondering if the F-108 had FBW as well? AVKent882 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision started[edit]

Before starting a more extensive rewrite, I am canvassing for any other editor's comments. I am now in the process of gathering research material. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently there were two different design studies. The photo and three-view show the original design mock-up. Bill Gunston's Fighters of the Fifties has a brief overview of the differences. (pp. 178-179 in my copy) Cheers.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and Lloyd Jones U.S. Fighters... has a three-view of the second version.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual number of design and designation names[edit]

This particular aircraft has been afflicted by a tremendous number of names and designations. It appears as the F-108, F-108A, YF-108A pre-production as well as company designation NA-236, NA-257 (the designations used prior to the USAF providing both a number and name to the project). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Maneuverability/Agility[edit]

Does anybody have any idea how agile the XF-108 would have been?

Despite the fact that the aircraft was designed as a high-speed, long-range interceptor, and was very large and quite massive, it was stressed to be able to pull the same g-loads as other ADC interceptors. Despite the fact that the aircraft weighed 104,320 lbs fully-loaded (IIRC: This figure is from a book titled "VALKYRIE: North American's Mach 3 Superbomber" written by Dennis R. Jenkins and Tony R. Landis. The figure is mentioned in the section about the XF-108 Rapier), it had a massive wing-area (1,865 square feet) which indicates a rather light wing-loading, which is often indicative of good sustained-turning performance, though not always the case (It's possible, for example, to have a somewhat small, yet highly efficient wing, or to have a somewhat larger, less-efficient wing).

I'm wondering how the plane's agility (sustained) would have compared to the F-102A and F-106A, which despite being interceptors, were quite nimble and possessed a great degree of sustained agility (Interestingly, the F-102's and F-106's were used to simulate MiG-21's as aggressor aircraft. The MiG-21 at Mach 0.8 at 16,000 feet, could sustain over 6g without loss of speed and was known for being a remarkably agile aircraft) due to their large wings. While the XF-108A's wing is very large, it is also very thin, with T/C ratio of around 3.5% on average if I recall (The F-102 and F-106's wings while relatively thin, were thicker, possessing a T/C ratio of 4.65%) which is pretty close to the F-104's T/C-ratio (3.4%) and is not always favorable towards sustained agility at intermediate airspeeds (300-400 kts at low altitude), and/or Mach numbers of 0.75 to 0.95 (at altitude). There do appear to be exceptions, such as the CF-105 Arrow who's wings were 3.5% thick at the root, and 3.8% at the tips and seemed to possess a pretty good degree of sustained agility in that airspeed/mach-range.

Anybody have any guesses? AVKent882 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs![edit]

The "Design" section is currently lacking in references; rather than tag it, I thought I'd just bung a quickie note here, as I know this article is being worked-up at the moment. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-108 mockup.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:F-108 mockup.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mdy dates?[edit]

So, a few days ago I, among other things, switched the article to mdy dates. It occurred to me that I should provide the rational for doing so:

In my opinion, the article does not fall under the US military dmy exception to mdy because it's notable primarily as an aviation project that did not enter service.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was still a US military project, so it's not an exception. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]