# Talk:McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II

While I understand that both McDonnell Douglas and General-Dynamics both worked on the design, normally one manufacturer gets predominant credit for the aircraft's design (i.e. The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 did have various sub-contractors in it's design, for example, Convair built the wings; The F/A-18 Hornet was based on General-Dynamic's YF-17; but McDonnell-Douglas got it's name on the F/A-18; The YF-23 also had assistance from McDonnell-Douglas even though Northrop was the main-contractor).  Do you know which contractor would have got the predominant credit?  Or was it perfectly split down the middle?  AVKent882 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas (McDD) was the team leader of a contractor team; Geberal Dynamics was a team partner, not a sub-contrator (ditto for YF-23 and Northrop/McDD). The other team in the ATA competition was Northrop and Grumman (pre merger), with Northrop as the team leader. (I don't know if there is a split arragnement, or what it is.) As to the rest, you're confusing sub-contractors with teams, but since this article is about the A-12, I'm not going to digress any further to explain, except to say the F/A-18 was actually both, but at different tiems - the deatails should be in that article. Also, please start adding your posts to the bottom of the talk pages, per the MOS. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
When at Northrop, I met the fellow who kept the design data for the A12 project.  Apparently the company was paying to keep the design data long after Northrop dropped out.  I believe that Northrop was waiting for a new carrier based bomber to be needed.  The X-47B may have benefited from this information.  Saltysailor (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[1]
Spartan198 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Finally is right! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever added this bit must be confusing the E/F Super Hornet for the earlier A-D Hornet, but even then the claim would still seem to be incorrect, because the A-D Hornet was already established in Navy service, being adopted in the early 1980s, when the A-12 was cancelled in 1990. Additionally, the development history on the F/A-18 page makes no mention of the A-12, instead stating that it was intended as a lower-cost alternative to the F-14. This inconsistency needs to be addressed. Spartan198 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The text only says the Super Hornet was pursued after the A-12 was canceled, and is well cited here.  Looks like you should be complaining on the Hornet's talk page instead.  The Hornet article only gives an brief overview since there's a separate Super Hornet article where the A-12 is mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The enormous mass of internal fuel (believable due to the shape), subsonic-only flight and the really poor range (1,480 km) don't fit together.
I have a strong suspicion that the "range" figuzre is rather the "mission radius" (and navigational reserves on top of that). A ferry range without extra fuel of 3,000-4,000 km would fit to this aircraft layout and internal fuel quantity.
Based on these suspicions I tried to look up some reputable source and the very first one (globalsecurity, often taken as source for wiki) provides 920 nm "mission radius". https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-12-specs.htm I change the article accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS1qfIGNgwI
Mentioned it can carry 12 AMRAAM internally 75.76.94.97 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)