Talk:North American XF-108 Rapier

message: 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)
thread_title:  Armament Questions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any survivors? 

message: 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  makes no such connection. 24.115.82.38 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discrepancy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Unusual number of design and designation names

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maneuverability/Agility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refs! 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:F-108 mockup.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: It was still a US military project, so it's not an exception. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mdy dates?