Talk:New Fighter Aircraft Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Fighter Aircraft Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from New Fighter Aircraft Project appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 11,100 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the New Fighter Aircraft program selected the CF-18 Hornet (pictured) for the Canadian Forces Air Command when attempts to purchase Iran's fleet of F-14 Tomcats failed?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

Wikipedia

Military history: Aviation / Canadian / North America

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

A disussion on merging this article with the CF-18 article is happening on Talk:CF-18 Hornet. -Fnlayson 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, >>T<<he F-14 almost ended up being purchased from" change to "t"georgejmyersjr (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It'd been easier to fix it than to leave the message though. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the following quote: "While the negotiations with McD were continuing, Air Canada announced it was purchasing the Lockheed L-1011 to add to its wide-body fleet. This greatly angered McD CEO James Smith McDonnell, who personally threatened to cancel the entire agreement up to that point."

Air Canada had ordered the L-1011 back in the early seventies, and they entered service in 1973. This quote probably refers to Air Canada's follow-up purchase of L-1011-500s for long-haul international flights, which went into service in 1981 and presumably were purchased while the NFA contract was in contention. Either that or the original source is in error.--Voodude (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well caught. The source is not clear on the point (but is generally more interested in politics than the planes). Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the quotation within the article: It should be noted that this represented a significant decrease in fleet numbers; there were 132 Voodoos and 200 Starfighters being replaced by less than half that number of aircraft. -- These numbers are in error. Canada never had more than 66 Voodoos at a time (the total of 132 is the total of the number of "first batch" and "second batch" aircraft in the CAF fleet). Additionally, the CF-104 fleet was substantially reduced in size around 1970, when the number of RCAF squadrons in Germany was reduced (ultimately to three squadrons -- I believe that there were nine at one point), and a fair number of CF-104s were sold off to Norway and Denmark. So, although I suspect that there were more CF-101s and CF-104s than CF-18s to replace them, the difference was no where near as drastic as the article makes out. I haven't made the change myself because I don't have precise numbers for the post-1970 CF-104 fleet at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodude (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]