Talk:McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II

message: Does this article really need the paragraph about someone from a UFO conspiracy web speculating that a blurred image of a triangular shape in the sky might indicate the A-12 had actually gone into test flights?  The paragraph seems to be a shameless plug for the UFO web site and adds absolutely nothing of substance.  I'm removing it. --JJLatWiki 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO? 

message: Was any x-variant of this ever known to fly?  The "artist's rendition" looks like a generic '60's era flying wing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ever fly 

message: May I recommend The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collapse of the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber Program by James P. Stevenson? It's the quintessential "all you'll ever want to know ..." and then some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.61.146 (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Book 

message: This plane that can travel at 500 knots and carry 2 AIM-120s is supposed to be a match for an F-22, F-35 that is unbelievable. Can someone please put in more logical adversaries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Comparable aircraft" field doesn't necessarily list "potential advesaries". Just aircrfaft of a "similar configuarion, role, or era". No need to change anything. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable Aircraft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Manufacturer Question 

message: I've rewritten much of the Development section using the Jenkins A-6 book.  It has 2-3 pages on the A-12 as it was to replace the A-6.  About the only thing left I could add from this is that the A-12 full size mock-up was revealed publicly in 1996.  Maybe worth noting, but it does not add much.  More referenced info on the A-12's design would be good.  Help if you can.  Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Kyteto for adding a lot of details, copy editing and all.  I have a question on the specs.  The Thomason book lists some basic specs for the McDonnell Douglas team proposal compared with the Northrop team proposal.  It list a takeoff weight of just over 69,000 lb for both.  I think that is a mission/typical takeoff weight, not a max TO weight. Is there any description on the 80,000 lb weight in the Stealth Warplanes book?  -fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it does, the online scan available actually cuts off the bottom of every page, thus it might have been there but lost due to lazy scanning, I don't own a physical copy of the book sadly. Most other statistics are listed on that page, but on this scan I can't say if it is there or not, it looks like it would have been though. The specifications could use an additional cite. Kyteto (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: * Oh, OK.  The preview on Google Books did not seem to have that page available for free viewing earlier today.  I'll try to cite the data I can. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've managed to cite the per unit cost (and added the overall project cost), the previous uncited cost was far higher, but there's no evidence presented that it was correct or citable to anyone (plus the source I used was negative about the aircraft, and a negative source would have tried to drum up the costs rather than play them down). All that remains now is a check of those weight values, and we're ready for GAN I believe. Kyteto (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some poking around, I'm satisifed that the figure provided is valid and cited. Nominating for GAN. Kyteto (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sure.  The 69,000+ lb value I mentioned above was a proposed weight before weight growth. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It passed the GA review this morning.  Well done Kyteto!  I'll see if my books have any notable info left to add. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, I'm happy to have helped spruce up this article on a novel, albiet cancelled, aircraft. I hope I have the same luck in my other ongoing projects! Kyteto (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion/improvements 

message: http://defensetech.org/2011/12/28/who-wants-to-buy-an-a-12-canopy/ Buy it Now for a paltry $620,238.00 Bizzybody (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-12 canopy on eBay 

message: Spartan198 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally is right! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit has finally been settled 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  F/A-18E/F adopted after cancellation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306132019/http://www.facmuseum.org/docs/VMAP%20Monthly/VAMP%20Monthly%20October%202013.pdf to http://www.facmuseum.org/docs/VMAP%20Monthly/VAMP%20Monthly%20October%202013.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628200712/http://www.cdi.org/adm/723/transcript.html to http://www.cdi.org/adm/723/transcript.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528164357/http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/nd90.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/nd90.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  specs don't fit together