Talk:Northrop F-89 Scorpion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Night Fighter to Dedicated All-Weather Interceptor

Why was the aircraft's mission changed from a night-fighter to all-weather interceptor? Or moreover, why was it not used as a night-fighter like the F3D Skyknight was AVKent882 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

With the widespread advent of GCA post-WW II, weather became unimportant for getting an aircraft back down on the ground safely, so radar-equipped night fighters effectively became usable in all weathers, heavy rain, fog, hail, etc., rather than just at night - hence the change of terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

53-2494

Does anyone know the status of 53-2494? This weekend I saw what appears to be an F-89 under heavy opaque plastic wrap (not enough to disguise the telltale shape) at the New England Air Museum. If they've acquired one, that would be the logical choice. --Warphammer 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rating

Should this be Low importance or Mid? My heart says Mid (or High ;-) ) but realistically I'm not sure. - Aerobird 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

F-89 survivors

In the list of "18 surviving" F-89s, "F-89J s/n 53-2463 on display at the Museum of Aviation, Warner Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia" is listed twice. There has been a complete F-89J on display at various locations on Wittman Regional Airport (home of the Experimental Aircraft Association, Oshkosh, WI) for many years. It's painted in Wisconsin ANG livery. (EAA website discribes the aircraft, but does not give a serial number at http://museum.eaa.org/collection/aircraft/Northrop%20F-89J.asp#TopOfPage). There is also one on display inside the secure area of the Maine Air National Guard's 101st ARW on the Bangor International Airport (again, serial number is unknown). CBsHellcat@aol.com

Lakeview Park

I de-linked Lakeview Park because that article stub is for a park in the UK. Here's info and photos on 49-2457 in Nampa, ID. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2EHE_F_89B_Scorpion_Nampa_Idaho_USA Bizzybody (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What's up with "This section needs additional citations for verification"

Seems silly to require additional citations for display aircraft. Most museums have their own page in wiki. Is EVERY fact supposed to be cited now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassetman4 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, every fact is supposed to be cited if challenged or likely to be challenged, per WP:V, which is not a new policy. Also, WP articles are not reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But who's likely to challenge something so insignificant and easy to check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassetman4 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the tag appears to be based on a concern that most of the list actually are not significant examples, as the "aircraft on display" should be a list of a few examples that represent the many aircraft on display. If the list of surviving airframes becomes overwhelming, it may be suggested that the list becomes an article on its own. See: North American F-86 Sabre for an example of a "daughter" List of surviving Sabre aircraft article connected to the parent article. FWiW, the F-89 aircraft on display list required quite a bit of surgery and extra work ... Bzuk (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Actually, almost all of the 'aircraft on display' lists contain every known surviving example of that aircraft, not just a 'few examples'. When the list becomes too large, then it becomes its own page. I don't think their should be additional references/cites, as they are linked to museum pages. I've worked on quite a few of these lists, including this one, and this seems to be the format that works. Redjacket3827 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

F89 "first"?

Does anyone have access to the Kinsey book cited to confirm the language used here? "The Northrop F-89 Scorpion was an American all-weather interceptor built during the 1950s, the first jet-powered aircraft designed as such from the outset to enter service.[3]"

OK. I had just drafted the two paras below when I twigged to the meaning. I have altered the sentence to read "The Northrop F-89 Scorpion was an American all-weather interceptor built during the 1950s, the first jet-powered aircraft designed for that role from the outset to enter service.[3]" If the issue at stake is the precise role for which the fighter was designed, then yes that seems clear.

[For quite some time I assumed that sentence as written meant the first jet-powered aircraft designed as a jet-powered aircraft [as opposed to say a converted design that first hit the drawing boards for prop propulsion] to enter service. That didn't seem likely. There were also several jet-powered aircraft that appear to have been designed as such entering service years before 1950 including Britain's Gloster Meteor [I don't know when the first postwar UK jets did, but Meteor for sure], the US P-80/F-80 Shooting Star from Lockheed [again, at least] and of course the German ME-262. I can't immediately find anything in the articles for those aircraft that suggests they had not always been designed for jet engines.

Actually- this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-generation_jet_fighter suggests a number of purpose-designed and built jet powered fighters entered service in the US, UK and USSR before 1950.] Random noter (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is about being the the first jet-powered all-weather interceptor not the first jet-powered anything. All-weather being the important discriminator I believe. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How many A models?

In the oprational history section it says 18, in the variants section it says 8, which is true? Truedings (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also:

Only 18 F-89As were completed, which were mainly used for tests and trials, before the type was upgraded to F-89B standard, with new avionics.[22] The type entered service with the 84th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in June 1951,[23] experiencing considerable problems with engines and other systems, and soon gave way to the F-89C. Despite repeated engine changes, problems persisted, compounded by the discovery of structural problems with the wings that led to the grounding of the F-89 and forced a refit of 194 -A, -B, and -C models.

isn´t quite clear about if -A´s entered active service. Truedings (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Another F89 "first"

The article states, "...it was among the first United States Air Force (USAF) jet fighters equipped with guided missiles, This was the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon. It would seem the more specific would be preferential to the generic. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a Jet

Okay, I know this is going to seem weird, or picky, but the article's opening paragraph - nay, opening sentence, begins with the aircraft's name (good) and what it was; adjectives and noun, before quickly mentioning a first. What baffles me is that, immediately following the name and "was", it *doesn't* then say "a jet fighter"/"jet interceptor", but leaves the fact of the aircraft being jet-propelled to the follow-up 'first' mention. Is it just me, or does it seem odd that an article about a first-generation jet fighter doesn't mention that it's a jet fighter until *concluding* the type's description? I just find it hard to believe that "all-weather" is somehow more important to the average reader than "it's a jet!". Do we think the typical reader will be more switched-on or informed by this kind of factual prioritisation? Because Imma be honest, that seems well weird to me. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3459:CA81:CC49:53A8 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence states: The Northrop F-89 Scorpion was an American all-weather, twin-engined interceptor aircraft built during the 1950s, the first jet-powered aircraft designed for that role from the outset to enter service. (Emphasis mine.) We don't need to repeat "jet" twice, as that would be awkward, as would trying to say all that in one clause. If it were at the end of a long paragraph, you might have a good point. Perhaps it can be reworded, but frankly I don't see the need. BilCat (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your point is well made. Wouldn't be awfully hard, however, to help the less advanced reader by rewording to something along the lines of "an American jet-powered, all-weather" etc... "the first such aircraft"...

What do you think?

It's just, if I were writing an article about a battleship, I'd probably make that the first thing I'd write about it, before going into 'radar-equipped, x-calibre-armed, fast carrier escort; the first battleship designed for this role...'

But, don't get me wrong, I completely understand your position and perspective. No shade. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E1A1:9935:A41B:B355 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"Battleship" and "fighter" are roles. "Jet-powered" isn't a role. BilCat (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

'Battleship' is also a broad classification actually. So is 'Jet'. My point being, It's a Jet. That'sd what lay readers actually care about.

"The Republic F-84 Thunderjet was an American turbojet fighter-bomber aircraft."

That's lovely. That's what a lay reader wants. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:51B8:5F55:FBFF:99FE (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's still in the first sentence. If another regular editor agrees with you, that's fine, but it really isn't something to keep going on about. BilCat (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it is. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:51B8:5F55:FBFF:99FE (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. BilCat (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Had a go at rewording it - because you're right and I'm wrong; it really wasn't something worth discussing continuously - and I've added in some links to assist the reader with reading around the topic. Kept the spirit of the previous version, kept all of the previously-written points & facts in there, split the first sentence into two clauses with a semi-colon separating them. (You were so, so right, BillCat; it really would have been too klunky if it were all-in-one. Nice helpful pointer.)

Yeah, gave it a go and... looks alright actually. That's neat cos, I look at things on WP I find a bit awks or klunky all the time and, tbh, people don't usually like my edits and some folk can get a bit tetchy about it and just delete or undo them, and sometimes I get told off by full-time editors like as if I was a little kid. Luckily, you're not that type of editor, so that's cool.

I haven't edited for a while til now; like I said, mainly because it can upset more possessive editors.

But this has made me realise that I'm a lot better at this than I thought I was, and so I've helped to make an article better and feel better about myself - and, following the nervous breakdown and the head injury last year, goodness knows it's been hard to rebuild any semblance of self-esteem.

So, thank you for giving me the encouragement I needed, friend! 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:719B:A1C5:C9A7:E419 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I definitely don't understand your rationale for the reversion, friend. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F858:CC65:1CD0:F60 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a nice way of saying it wasn't an improvement, and what was there was much better. BilCat (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)