Talk:Grumman F-9 Cougar/Archive 1

GA-7 Cougar
I added a link from F9F Cougar (an a/c built by Grumman) (automatically redirected from "Grumman Cougar" !!) to Gulfstream American GA-7 Cougar (Company later purchased by Grumman…)Jaypee1 13:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According the Gulfstream American GA-7 Cougar article, this Cougar name was not used until after Gulfstream bought the civil division of Grumman. Also, I have added a standard "other uses" template. - BillCJ 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

vs MiG-15 Speculation / Bluster
I edited this article: 1. to remove some blustering, unsubstantiated nonsense about how the Cougar could 'hold its own' with the MiG-15. While potentially true, given that it never saw combat against the MiG15, this is at best conjecture. I modified the relevant paragraph to reflect this. 2. to call it a 'Soviet' MiG-15 and not a 'Russian' MiG-15. The ignorance of people who know the number of rivets of oil pans on obscure interwar one off aircraft but can't be bothered to get the name of the major WW2/Cold War player correct is just maddening. saying 'Russian MiG-15' is as ignorant and incorrect as saying 'English Lancaster Bomber' or 'Californian Air Force Over Korea.'  It's just incorrect and ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.5.144 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Supersonic in Dive?
There was a book written by retired RADM Paul T. Gillchrist, titled "Feet Wet", who stated the F9F-Cougars could go supersonic in a dive. Is this true? AVKent882 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have a source stating F9F-8 was capable of reaching supersonic speed in a steep dive. I'm not sure if the F9F-6 could achieve this feat though. F-16 Viper (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

F8F-8 Typo
There is a photo about half way down the page labeled "The F9F-8 was fitted with an inflight refueling probe and Sidewinder missiles." When opened, this link loads a file incorrectly named "F8F---" instead of "F9F---". I would fix this but I don't know how. Would appreciate it if someone who knows how fixed this. Olan7allen (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Grumman F9F Cougar
Any objection to moving the article to Grumman F9F Cougar? F9F appears to be more common than F-9. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection - it spent about half its life being on or the other but I suspect F9F is more common and the more active period. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that it's been 12 years any objection to finally moving article to Grumman F9F Cougar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernResidentOrca (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Specifications corrected
I changed the specifications using sources that are specifically about the F9F. The previous specs listed were from the very first edit back in 2004 and no citation was given. The source which was added later is for a very broad variety of airplanes, and may have just been added so that the specs would have a citation. It's also important to note that several sites on the internet may state the exact same thing but are actually just relaying the information from the Wikipedia page itself as it as been around so long. You can tell because on many pages as it is written in the exact format and layout as the Specifications layout used for Airplane Wiki pages. The top speed that was previously listed for the F9F-8 was unrealistically low given the t/w ratio of the aircraft and it was slower than what the what published sources were stating as the F9F-6 top speed, which doesn't make sense. I plan on expanding the page and providing citations for unsourced material in the near future. F-16 Viper (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the original specs were posted before there was an adequate source. I have added the specs for the F9F-6 and used a complete source. HuskyAircraftFlight66 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. F-16 Viper (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh?
"This allowed the Cougar to fly safely and easily without the upper portion of the tail"

I am unclear on what this statement means. Is this a deliberate design feature? Or speculation on the part of an author?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)