Talk:Boeing Bird of Prey

"Government sponsored norm" This is interesting. Could anyone expand on this?

On a different note: I think the name "Switchblade" has been reassigned to a skew-wing [one wing swept forward, one swept back; its weird, but so is the Nighthawk] aircraft project- can anyone confirm or discount this?

The Switchblade codename shift for the skew-wing was published last autumn, I believe. 131.207.236.198 11:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so new

This bit: the Bird of Prey was otherwise key in the development of a new kind of low-visibility camouflage. Areas that are usually lit most brightly (such as the horizontal flat surfaces over the wings and the top of the fuselage) were painted more darkly, and areas that are usually not quite as bright (such as the sides of the fuselage and other more vertical surfaces) were painted a lighter shade of gray[citation needed]. This reduced the overall contrast of the aircraft, making the whole shape appear to be one relatively even shade of gray

This is an old concept in camouflage; see the Wikipedia article on Countershading. Besides being found in nature it has also been long used on aircraft, notably during WW2. Roarshocker (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I have deleted the paragraph as being non-notable. Letdorf (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

I think it is interesting and relevant enough, if you take out the language about it being "a new kind of low-visibility paint". It is interesting to know the method which they used to paint the aircraft and why they painted the different areas those different colors. To admit my ingorance, I was not aware that "countershading" was a thing, and I might never have known at all if I hadn't stumbled into this talk page and seen it. So you delete the factual information about the interesting paint technques used on it to minimaize visual presense, and now the article is about things like how the Bird was "used as a test bed for active camouflage and color shfiting surfaces", and other unikely stuff cooked up on interent message boards. Because of course, it LOOKS really badass and futuristic, so it stands to reason they'd use it as a testbed for invisibility camouflage (they just aren't telling the public the real story!!!!!1!).

Never mind that they could test active camoflage perfectly well on a Cessna, or any other surplus aircraft they have lying around.

People don't seem to realize this is basically just the aeronautic equivalent of a concept car at a show: looks very fast and futuristic, ready to go and tear up the autobahn at 190mph in self-driving mode, power scissor doors, full-glass sunroof....but in actuallity it's just got a small electic motor and some car batteries and is only able to roll in and out of the show room under its own power. Or more like it's actually built on the drivetrain of a Toyota Yaris. A commercial turbofan and mechanical controls....but look at that shape! You know there's some alien technology in there somewhere, clearly the governmebt is lying about something! But I'm off track. You didn't need to delete that whole section, you could have just changed it a little, or at LEAST left something like "the paint scheme of the Bird of Prey featured a well-known type of visual camouflage known as countershading to minmize the visual impact of different areas of the fuselage". That way people can actually learn something new, and they don't have to know what countershading is already in order to look at the plane and understand what they are seeing. One of my biggest pet peeves with wikipedia is editor's tendecy to write articles expressly for people who already know all about the subject. That seems to be defeating the true purpose of wikipedia, but it is the easiest way to show off your in depth knowledge, by utterly disregarding the basic information a newcomer might need to grasp the subject (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here, but it's similar in a way).

Idumea47b (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bop-001.jpg

Image:Bop-001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing Bird of Prey. 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/20041010171318/http://www.boeing.com:80/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)