Talk:McDonnell XP-67

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Bat?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where does this Bat name come from? A McDonnell Aircraft video doesn't mention this or the couple books I have that list the XP-67. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

My sources use both names interchangeably; I believe that both names were informal, and that the airplane was never officially named by the USAAF, but I have not found a source that definitively states this.Carguychris (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Undid "Number built" revision

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have undone the revision by Bao b2 15 changing "Number built" from 1 to 2. Sources state that the second prototype was officially considered only 15% complete when the XP-67 program was canceled, and that the lack of progress on the second prototype largely prompted the Army's decision to cancel the project, since it would have taken weeks, if not months, to make it airworthy and resume the flight-testing program. The Army authorized McDonnell to cut up the second XP-67 for scrap, although it's not clear from my sources exactly what ultimately happened to it. Unless some more information comes to light, saying that the second XP-67 was "built" is entirely too optimistic, hence the reversion.Carguychris (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Resource and pics

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was trying to locate some top-down photos and ran across this resource. It would have to be vetted for accuracy and see if the photos are usable, but it has interesting information on this unique aircraft. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://oldmachinepress.com/2020/05/05/mcdonnell-aircraft-corporation-xp-67-fighter/

That page is interesting, and I've been meaning to circle back and improve this article for some time, so I'll start checking the bibliography. The wind tunnel model photos are neat, and they appear to be government work, and therefore should be public domain; I'll double-check the NASA page later. That said, the author provides no attribution for the photos of the flying prototype, which look very familiar to me; I'm fairly certain that they're McDonnell factory photos that are now owned by Boeing, so they can't be used here. Carguychris (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic