Talk:Mitsubishi F-1

When?
When was the craft developed? --Compay 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The SEPECAT Jaguar and the F-1
"00:39, 4 December 2008 BillCJ (Talk | contribs) (6,751 bytes) (Removed incorrect item - Jaguar development began around same time as the T-2, on which F-1 is completely based; Jaguar not supersonic)"

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avt2f1.html

The T-2 was first proposed in 1967 after negotiations for a licensed production of the, as of yet, unbuilt SEPECAT Jaguar design (established in 1966) in Japan fell through. The single seat Jaguar proposed for the Japanese 'T-X' competition was an 'inspiration' for the indigenous Japanese designed trainer but remained a Japanese design. The F-1 is NOT a copy of the SEPECAT Jaguar, one has to simply compare the specifications and dimensions to see that the aircraft is different. The inclusion of the SEPECAT Jaguar as a 'related aircraft' is not in terms of performance or role but of design. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The field is for "similar/comparable aircraft". By your own standard in removing the SOKO J-22 (also similar in design, and "inspired" by the Jaguar), the subsonic Jaguar, being, is not comparable. "Looking alike" is generally not enough for inclusion in that field, though it would be fine under the "See also" field. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... I thought you were disputing the 'connection' between the Jaguar and F-1, sorry about that. But I'm not sure if it could fit under 'Related development' either since that is usually reserved for aircraft developed to or from and the T-2, although borrowing concepts from the Jaguar design, was still a local design not 'directly' related to the Jaguar. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not "Related development", as I agree they are not directly related. I was referring to the "See also" field, which is the bottom of the template. Sorry I was not more specific, as these fields can be a bit confusing at times. - BillCJ (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well both are subheaders under 'See Also' so I assumed they had to go into one of them. But if it can just go under 'See Also' without going under either of them without violating some sort of 'wikietiquette'. Thanks for the help! Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill CJ
you reversed my changes to the F-1 page but is there any reasons for doing so? I believe at least most of my information was correct and that there was no reason to reverse these changes. The information you changed it back to are wrong and old. E.g. the F-1 was retired in 2006.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi F-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513022552/http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXHAC7&P=7 to http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXHAC7&P=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The F-111 and its relevancy.
Rather than starting an edit war, I’ll instead voice my opinion here. Both the F-111 and the F-1 are (generally) attack/strike aircraft, both are of similar appearance and are often confused with one another, and both feature similar capabilities (except payload). As a result, I feel it falls under the “comparable role” and “era” category. Heyimastopsign (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)