Talk:North American F-107

Scoop

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)

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)

side stick control research

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)

Recent comment about importance of YF-107

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).

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)

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)

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)

"YF" designation

I've never seen any reference that lists this a/c as a "YF". All I've ever seen is F-107A. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, both NASA and the National Museum of the Air Force at Wright Pat refer to it with no "Y". Further, it's painted on the side of the airplanes, "F-107A". I'm moving the page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a start. The original talk page didn't come over from the move so we start over, maybe? Anyway, on page 127 of the Simone book is a picture of the manufacturers ID plate from a/c #3 (55-5120) clearly showing the F-107A designation. But it's not a big matter. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now it's moved. I told it to move talk page too and didn't get any warnings? Strange. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange! When I tried to move the article I got the red letter stuff telling me that either the title was already in use or that it was invalid. OK, I'm not up on Wikiadmin stuff. After two years at it I still consider myself a novice. Alot of to-do for a small article...Oh well....Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, WTF just happened? yF-107 isn't any convention. Nor is YF-107. The Air Force and NASA, both of the owners of the three aircraft, designated it the "F-107A". What is the issue here?--Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This move is opposed as controversial, and has been reverted. Please submit a move proposal, and gain a consensus to move the page. Thanks. PS, I made a mistake in reverting the move, it should be moved back to North American YF-107 by an admin shortly. - BillCJ (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my move of "North American YF-107" to North American F-107. However, you cited a Wikiproject that does not support your reversion. Both the Air Force and NASA designated the aircraft in question the "F-107" and did not use the "YF" designation. Look at the side of the aircraft in the pictures, look at [1], look at [2], look at [3]. Boeing uses the incorrect YF-107A and many have used the reverse-applied "YF" prefix as many other prototype and pre-production programs around that time had them... THIS ONE DIDN'T. Could you please undo this? At any rate, you moved the page to North American yF-107 which is more wrong. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference I have (U.S.Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909) says nine were ordered but only the first three designated YF-107A-NA (55-5118, 55-5119 and 55-5120) were built. Also Baugher has YF-107A[4] so I would suggest that it stays at YF-107 (when the little y thing is sorted). MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I stated that the (previous) title, "North American YF-107", "is consistent with WP:AIR/NC naming conventions", which it is. That's all I said; there's nothing in the conventions forbidding the "Y" prefix from being used. You made a move that is opposed, thus controversial, and I reverted it - my very-bad typing notwithstanding. This is all in accord with WP guidleines on moves. YOur next step is to propose a move, list it at the correct location, and try to build a consensus to move it to YF-107.

Why I beleve "YF-107" is correct: Just because certain USAF and NASA sites don't use the "Y" doesn't mean it's incorrect. Per The American Fighter by Enzo Angelucci (Sparkford, Somerset: Haynes Publishing Group, 1987. ISBN 0-85429-635-2), and several other sources I've read over the years but don't have immediate access to, three YF-107As were built. The Boeing site backes this up. There were no production F-107As. Yes, the label "F-107A" appears in the pictures, but this is not necessarily official. When an "XF" or "YF" prefix is the only one assigned, it is standard practice within WP:AIR to include the "X" or "Y" in the title. See Northrop YF-17 for an example. We generally don't include the suffix letters, such as "A", in titles unless there are other articles on variants of the same aircraft. An example is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F/A-18 Hornet. - BillCJ (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nukes, you are correct that the NMUSAF F-107 page calls it the "F-107". However, on the same site, the F-100 page refers to 3 "YF-107"s. In addition, a PDF document on the USAF domain also lists "YF-107A". So even government sources are inconsistent in the this. Given the fact that the plane did not enter production, the use of "YF" is probably correct. - BillCJ (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I never thought there would be a small edit war over this. Controversial??? "Probably" correct??? I can only refer you to William Simone's book from Ginter Pubs. He's been researching this a/c for 30 years and on page 2 says quite clearly that the "YF" or( "XF") designation is one of those myths surrounding the plane. It came in as a F-107A and went out as F-107A.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a "controversial" move means that not everyone argrees with it, and it must be made througfh a move proposal - that's all it means in this context. As to Simone's book, I've never heard of it or the book, and everything I've ever read states that "YF-107" is the official designation, with "A" as the only variant. Given that the bulk of reliable sources state "YF-107A" is correct, you'll need more than just one source to prove otherwise. Also, please stop adding "A" in every location where the designation occurs; it's not necessary, especially in the Lead sentence and the Infobox title line. It'd be much easier if you'd ask before making certain changes, as we do have specific ways of doing things in the WP:AIR, and for specific reasons. - BillCJ (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Please don't move articles or talk pages via Cut-and-paste. If something messes up during the move, ask for help. Cut-and-paste moves break the article history. Most editors have done it before, myself included, but it takes an administrator to fix it. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for further information. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest this Ginter Publications F-107A He has been in the business a long time and has a pretty good reputation for accuracy. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, why aren't the US Air Force and NASA good enough sources? I'd frankly never heard of the "YF-107A" until I saw the article. It's historically inaccurate to put a "Y" or an "X" in front, the F-100 was the "Y" model, the F-107 was merely a highly modified F-100 and didn't warrant a "Y". Not sure why it's disputed, it was a common-sense move to me. I'll admit, I don't generally search the Internet for my info. To back up your position, what does "Janes" say? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which USAF sources? The ones that say "F-107" or "YF-107"? - BillCJ (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided an AF Source that says F-107, you haven't provided a rebuttal. It's not really academic either, you'll need to make a case to counter what I've provided. Tag, you're it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I provided 2 USAF sources that show "YF-107". What more do you want? - BillCJ (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A way forward

We need to set about forming a consensus rather than continue to edit-war over whether "YF" or "F" is used in the text. Whatever page the article is at, the Infobox title and Lead sentence should match. Since it's at "YF-107" now (the previous position before the nonconsensual move) we ought to leave it at "YF" for the time being. At the risk of violating WP:3RR, I won't make any further changes, but would ask that the "YF"s be re-added as a good-faith measure.

The next step is to run a poll to determine the concensus on the name. This is not "voting" as such, but will be used by an admin to determine the general consensus for what the title should be. As anyone who knows me on WP knows, I will support whatever the consensus is for the article title, whether I agree with it or not. That is how things work on Wikipedia - we sometimes have to support decisions we disagree with, or even think are wrong, for the sake of consensus and moving forward.

Finally, there are many sources which support both positions in dispute. Whatever the final outcome, in the absence of an overwhelmingly-definitve source (since available USAF sources show both, including the same museum site!), we should include in a footnote that some sources use the "YF", while others don't. - BillCJ (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is something in the world called "systematic error". Somewhere along the line, someone in a relative position of authority "got it wrong" and lesser mortals passed it on. It becomes myth and difficult to eradicate. I'm not trying to eliminate all error but reduce some of it. Now, I've been fascinated with aviation for most of my 55 years. Never, not once and no how have I heard the a/c referred to as anything but "F-107A". No Other Way. BillCJ, you tell me that your sources aren't passing along systematic errors. Have you done enough spadework to find out? I mention the Simone book mostly because he has a full page devoted to the myths and errors that have crept into the picture over the past fifty years. Read the book, 145 pages; the man's research is impeccable. His father worked on the aircraft in the 50s. Simone, himself, was the prime mover in the recovery and restoration of the F-107A at the Pima Air Museum 35 years ago. He is simply not about sloppy, lazy research and neither am I, as far as I can help it.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We can play the "my source is right, your source is wrong" game all you want, but that won't accomplish anything. It certainly isn't going to move us forward here, which is the point of my adding a new subsection. The issue is really not that big a deal in the scheme of things - it's just about a letter. But there are contradictory sources, including from the USAF itself. In Wikipedia, there are methods for trying to move an issue forward, and that's the purpose of this new subsection, to lay out how a consensus can be achieved, not to dictate what it will be. I do not have access to the book you've mentioned, not am I likely to in the future, for personal reasons. But it is still just one source. - BillCJ (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to start a vote, please do. I see that no level of reason will suffice. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well, the results would be interesting. Still, the F-107A is a historical footnote and this little "tempest in tea-pot" won't matter much. The truly interested will do their legwork, go look at the primary sources and find out what it really was. The lazy will simply wander back into darkness none the wiser. So be it!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked Andreas Parsch of designation-systems.net for help on this question. As documented on his website, he often makes request from the US DOD and USAF for copies of original MDS documents - some of the aforementioned primary sources. One of them, MDS Sheet 1 has a hand-written chart of MDS designators, and - alas for my pride! - the only designation assigned to the F-107 was F-107A.

At this point, I withdraw my objection to the move. Sometime in the future, I hope to acqire Simone's book, but as a life-long bookworm and aircraft fan, my books-to-buy list is quite long, and my income quite short. In the meantime, if someone could write a brief paragraph on the designation and the myth of the "YF-107" from the book, we can place in in the article to inform others such as myself who have always seen "YF-107A" in print. I'll also add the link to the original document copy on Parsch's site. I'll add a move tag to the F-107 page; an admin will review this discussion, and either move the page, or respond that a move poll is warranted. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my €0.02 ;-) to the discussion. Designations, which have became a "semi-official" de facto standard are sometimes missing from those 1950s nomenclature sheets, if they were never requested and approved through all the proper bureaucratic channels. While such designations might not be as "official" as others, they were still widely used and therefore also appear on, say, USAF fact sheets. So, "YF-107A" might be one of those "semi-official" designations - but on the other hand, it might just as well be a one-time error/typo which has propagated forward through time by countless copying-without-checking. Based on my research experience, I would strongly suspect the latter. Andreas Parsch (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't join in on the YF/F-107/F-107A fun earlier but being bereft of reference sources, and out in Mexico for a week and in Toronto twice on business and pleasure trips, I finally got a look at Steve Pace's X-Fighters: USAF Experimental and Prototype Fighters XP-59 to YF-23, Nico Sgarlato and Franco Ragni's U.S. Fighters of the Fifties and Robert F. Dorr and David Donald's Fighters of the United States Air Force. All of the sources agree that the aircraft type designation was the F-107 while the three prototypes were designated the YF-107A. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Problem being, that's not what the Air Force listed them as on their books, nor did that designation reside on the identiplates. If it is, indeed, a mistake sometime in the past that has continued, all of the SECONDARY sources are poisoned and only primary sources will resolve this. The only primary source identified up to this point is the MDS listing that clearly says "F-100B" and "F-107A" with a blank spot where the YF-107A would have been. In this case, since the secondary sources disagree, the primary source should prevail. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Really, the 107's place in history is negligable. My father was a scientist and I was brought up with notions about collegiality and primary sources. I argue from that framework. I'm also reasonably mature enough to sense when to let go. Cheers--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the comments, it looks like F-107A is the prevailing designation according to primary sources, consequently, the revisions to the article should follow accordingly and I suggest Phyllis1753 may be the appropriate choice to "go to it." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

I can deal with F-107. (The YF-93 page should be YF-93A but I won't squawk too hard.)--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

YF-93 is the type, and the "A" is the first model. We don't generally use the "A" or other variant letter in the title if there's not another article on the same type. In the Pre-1948 system, for example, P-51 was both the type and the first model. Using the type number alone is not incorrect, and I hope we won't have to argue this on every aircraft page with only the "A" model! - BillCJ (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. As I said I won't squawk too hard and I had my tongue in my cheek, anyway. We could also debate the "F" to "R" and "R" to "H" changes in September 1948 or when, exactly, the F-86C became the YF-93 if we have nothing better to do. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. :) - BillCJ (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research?

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)

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)

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

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) 11:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Prototype #2

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)

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)