Talk:Vought XF5U

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Gearbox made out of silver

Is there a simple explanation why parts of he gearbox were made out of silver?

[edit] Merge proposal

Oppose merge: Since I wrote or substantially contributed to both articles, there is a reason for treating them as separate aircraft. The V-173 emerges as the only true flying disk aircraft while the XF5U is an interesting development, but it is an "also-ran." There is enough information that is different to make each article stand out on its. own. FWIW Bzuk 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Since no consensus has emerged, the merge proposal is moot. FWIW Bzuk 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
I agree that both of these stand on their own merits. They are suitably linked together. --Colputt 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Speed

The speed in mph does not match the speed in kph. As well, have found sources which list top speed as 504 mph at 20,000 ft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.172.128 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

According to: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/SAC/XF5U-1_FlapjackACP-440601.pdf

top speed is 413 knots (475 mph / 765 kph) at 28,000 feet —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitsuneFX (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This doesn't make sense...

Near the top of the article I read... "modified "flapping" blade arrangement with "one pair in each set staggered ahead of the other." I cannot understand this. The V-173 had three blades per prop (look at the picture), so I'm not sure what "pair" it's talking about. It would make some sense if it refers to the post-173 prototypes, which had four blades, but if this is the case the sentance needs to be moved to make this clear. Maury 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argue for merge

Well I for one would like the merge. Why? Well...

  1. about half of the content here is about the V-173
  2. about half of the V-173 article is about the XF5U
  3. when combined, the single article would be perhaps 25% longer than either is now

And additionally...

  1. I see no information that should be unique to either article
  2. on the contrary, there is information in one or the other that absolutely should be in the other

Maury 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are those things?

Between the thing that passes for a fuselage and the propeller engines on the XF5U in the picture, there are two holes that look very much like air intake ports for jet engines. Can someone who knows about this aircraft edit either the article or the picture page to explain what those installations are? - ҉ - (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As the Lead states "Two piston engines buried in the body drove propellers located on the leading edge at the wingtips", I'd say those are the intakes for the piston engines. They were air-cooled radials, and it looks like the engines are mounted just behind the intakes. - BillCJ (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)