Talk:Convair Kingfish

Last Statement
The last statement draws a subjective and opinionated parallel between the KINGFISH and HAVE BLUE aircraft regarding aerodynamics. This statement seems pretty ridiculous in light of the fact that the HAVE BLUE was a subsonic aircraft and the KINGFISH was designed for high-supersonic speeds, something that plays a very important role in how aerodynamic design comes into play. The author obviously doesn't appreciate Kelly's doubts on the GD design and felt like he was more than qualified to interject his here. Unfortunately, its not only incorrect but lacking factual substance.

I removed it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.210.5 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing design for a liquid hydrogen powered inflatable design?
Can anyone substantiate this claim with evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.210.5 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The main picture
It is CGI isn't it ? Is it taken from commercial Flight Simulator software ? Are there any copyright issues with it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.88.179.66 (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath
As written, it says, '...and the "Kingfish" funds soon disappeared.' This makes it sound like the funds vanished without a trace, and can even be reasonably interpreted as a suggestion of misappropriation. If the author means funding was canceled s/he should say so in plain English. This is an Encyclopedia. Language should be concise and factual, even at the expense of stylistic embellishment or entertainment value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFE1:5AF9:BC6F:CF15:7342:6C1D (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I improved it with a reference to back it all up. Ironmungy (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)