Talk:YF-17 Cobra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
 |
YF-17 Cobra is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
Anybody care to do the metric conversions???? :-)
[edit] YF-17 and Azarakhsh
The only released photos of the Azarakhsh shows an aircraft that looks like a slightly larger F-5F with bigger engine intakes. It looks nothing like the YF-17. Hatcat 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Also - any reference for the Iranian role in YF-17 development? Hatcat 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notes for the rewrite
Removed unsourced statements like the Iranian allegation above. Note that this article is about the prototype, not the vastly different production Hornet, and comparisons and comments about the latter are not germane to this article. --Mmx1 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two Notes
I found two points for confusion in the section History:
1. History, 4th paragraph: "The two prototypes flew 288 test flights". Which two prototypes are meant? The YF-17 + YF-16 (which was mentioned in the previous sentence), or the two prototypes of YF-17 only?
2. History, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: "In August 1974, the Navy directed the Navy to make maximum use..." The double occurence of the Navy should be corrected.
- On the Navy-Navy point, I beleive it was Congress that directed the Navy to look at the LWF. If I can find a good source, I'll try to correct and cite it. --BillCJ 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
