Talk:North American F-107

message: It's curious to me they never thought to mount the scoop in the belly, with the nosegear under it, per F-16...  Trekphiler 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the scoop is on top is to allow a recessed nuclear weapon in the belly. Side scoops would be an option (as they were on the F-105), but this would require more radical changes from the original F-100 layout. Short-term gain, long-term pain. Maury 13:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scoop

message: According to the same site that provided the picture of the aircraft, the f-107 contributed to the testing of side stick controls -- which are now standard in many modern fighters.  This might be something worth mentioning in the main article.147.145.40.44 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: side stick control research

message: Copyedit from the "references" section: "Please note that the YF-107A acheive a documented top speed of 1400 miles per hour in a 5% climb NOT 1400 kilometers per hour! The Project engineer on this little know and great fighter/bomber was like a father to me and passed away in 1997. His name was Harold Dale and the man who flew the 107 to 14oo miles per hour is a retired NAA test pilot named JO Roberts. JO is still alive and lives in Southern California." Attributed to: 216.31.42.80 Signed: Bill Jongbloed. I believe this information can be incorporated into the article but it must be placed in an appropriate location and preferably with corroboration. Bzuk 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it definitely needs corroboration, given that I have 2 published sources listing the tp speed as 1400 km/h. I am inclined to believe the 1400 mph figure is accurate, as the F-105 the YF-107 competed against was a Mach 2 fighter, and also used the J75 engine (also in the Mach 2+ F-106). - BillCJ 23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knaack's Encyclopedia of USAF Fighters says "Over Mach 2" so 1400 mph out to be correct. Boeing's history page says "Mach 2.1". - Emt147 Burninate! 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dorr and Donald's Fighters of the United States Air Force says 1300 mph (Mach 2.0) at 20,000 ft.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent comment about importance of YF-107

message: This article states in reference to the intake placement: "The implications this had for the survivability of the pilot during ejection were troubling." Is there indeed a technical or official reference that cites this as an issue (no, not a british enthusiast book written by some hack regurgitating another hack's kibitzing from some other british enthusiast book) or is this some wiki-ite's opinion? Logically, it doesn't seem likely that a rocket-powered ejection seat that's able to successfully extricate a pilot from a fast moving aircraft is going to have that much trouble coping with the intake flow as well - it's just like the airplane is moving somewhat faster, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While it looks like the more obvious original research claim described above has been deleted from the article, the following comment still appears: "The flight crews referred to it as the "man eater", in reference to the position of the air intake directly above the cockpit." The reference cited for this dubious claim is some enthusiast's website, which also claims that NACA received the "two survivors" after the Air Force cancelled the program which even this article contradicts, so hardly a reliable source. In any case, the intake obviously isn't "directly above the cockpit" either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4280:A710:0:0:0:9C4 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The enthusiast in that source is definitely non-academic original research. He even wrote "Pilots feared that they would be sucked into the air intakes if they had to bail out, and gave the airplane the affectionate nickname of the “man-eater”." That is definitely the enthusiast's personal interjection. Any actual F-107 pilot would not have that "fear", as any F-107 pilot would know he is in no danger from the intakes during an ejection, as he is strapped into an ejection seat via 5-point harness which he wouldn't fall out of, and the ejection seat itself has more than enough momentum to clear the intakes swiftly. At least the source's naming of "Ultra Sabre" is accurate. I removed the "man-eater" nonsense from the article, moved ejection information into the Design & Development section, but kept the Ultra Sabre reference. 2603:800C:1700:9400:1412:1292:191B:1E16 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on North American F-107. 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/20070618140736/http://www.rocket.aero/f107a.html to http://www.rocket.aero/f107a.html
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) 11:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article has an issue with the discussion of Prototype #2. 
Under the Operational History heading, it states:
It was joined by the second F-107A (AF Ser. No. 55-5119), which made its first flight on 28 November 1956. It was used for weapons testing with both conventional and atomic bombs. (reference footnote #17)
But two paragraphs later, the article states:
Prototype #2 was never used for testing, and instead flown on 25 November 1957 to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. This aircraft had not been completed and none of the radio navigation systems had been installed.
It seems that both cannot be true, but I don't know how to discern which is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlwagner (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: its badly written, then the whole of the zippo story is more comic book then encyclopedic. It is trying to say that #2 was not used by NACA for testing but flown to a msueum instead. A lot of the rest is just bollox to make a good story. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prototype #2