Talk:Lockheed NF-104A

Welcome to the Lockheed NF-104A talk page
It is intended that this article be edited using American English grammar and spellings (even though I am English!!) as per WP:MOS and WP:AIR.

The article needs a three view drawing of the type if anyone has a 'free' one. many thanks Nimbus227 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a hand-drawn one, but you are welcome to it. BTW, great job on the story of an interesting sub-type. Sorry we were both editing on top of each other, read the article to make sure I didn't accidentally eliminate something. FWIW Bzuk 19:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Ooops! A bit of a blooper with mixing up the individual histories, must have gone cross eyed.

Thanks, will wait a bit till everyone else has had a chance to correct things. I did think this type was worth an article of its own. The fourth airframe info is interesting, I did have something on that but chose not to put it in but it is better with it, hope editing this is taking your mind off of other matters. Cheers Nimbus227 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, unfortunately, the latest "flap" has sapped all my energy but I will look up the sketch I made when I was trying to convert a plastic model to an NF-104 standard. FWIW Bzuk 20:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
 * There are quite a few drawings about in books and on the web, NF-104.com does not seem to have a copyright statement page unless I missed it, nice to see so many people getting the article up to scratchNimbus227 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the three view, quite a good one, cheers Nimbus227 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed NF-104A or NF-104
On the page about Rocketplane_XP it says "The XP is seeking challenges Lockheed did not attempt with the NF-104" and NF-104 is a link to the page 'NF-104' which is a redirect to the page 'F-104 Starfighter'.

I have changed the NF-104 to be a link to the page 'Lockheed NF-104A' (this article) which I think is what is meant.

If that is correct then I think that page 'NF-104' s/b removed. However I am new around here and I don't want to be too bold and also I don't know how to edit redirect pages.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Control Authority
This article states: "It was realized that normal aircraft control surfaces had little or no effect in the thin atmosphere of the stratosphere..." Many aircraft (civilian airliners for example) operate quite nicely in the lower stratosphere with "normal aircraft control surfaces" so perhaps someone might wish to revise this statement to read "upper stratosphere."


 * I have revised the wording. Libis (Page 25) states that the aircraft was controllable using its normal aerodynamic controls up to 90,000 ft, RCS only being used above this altitude. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)