Talk:Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech

Questions
Hi Everyone. Thanks for all the help on the info for this incredible, marvellous, yet ultimitely doomed aircraft.

There are a couple of points I am not sure about;

The Air-ram - I think it may have been deployed most of the time (not just in emergencies) - any ideas? most serious photos of the plane show it deployed.

Second - the first designation of XF-106. I actually saw on a TV documentary that the Navy had called it XF-106, but had abondoned the project very quickly, it was taken over by the USAF, who renamed it XF-84H. I have not been able to find any written confirmation of this (infact there is very little that even mentions it was ever called the XF-106 (the only link I have ever found is on the page) - any ideas?

Thanks - OscarG


 * According to The Great Book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough (2000), the project was originially a joint USAF and USN project. The XF-106 is an AF, not Navy, designation. The designation was changed quickly to XF-84H, and later reassigned to the F-106, showing that XF-106 was just a provisional designation. The USN also pulled out of the program after a short time, but I don't know the timeframe of redesignation and the Navy's pullout. Hope that helps. - BillCJ 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BillCJ. Thats great, I have pruned that statement back til I can get more info on it. Do you have the ISBN of that book? - it can go in the references.

If anyone is feeling up to it, the specs at the bottom need to be cleaned up. I have put in all the original stats I can find, but it still needs metric/imperial - imperial/metric conversions. Thanks Oscarg 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "XF-86H-RE Model AP.46, initially designated XF-106; redesign of the F-84F-RE with 5850 eshp XT40-A-1 coupled turboprop driving a three-bladed supersonic airscrew and a T-tail. Two F-84F-35-RE were delivered as XF-84H-RE (51-17059/17060) and tested by both the USAF and the USN." Andrade, John M., "U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909", Midland Counties Publications, Earl Shilton, Leicester, UK, ISBN 0-904597-22-9, page 103.  Mark Sublette (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

DISCUSSION; The word "unnofficial" was added to the world record entry. I consider this incorrect since it is not actually disputed wether or not it happened, and it IS in the GBWR, without an "unnofficial" notation. I thought unofficial was for situations like Ben Johnson's 100m record (now broken I think) - any other opinions? Oscarg 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I do have another can of worms also... Since it uses the jet engine for thrust (as well as propellor) is it actually worthy of the record?. I am not sure of how much thrust comes from the engine compared to the propellor. - Any ideas? Oscarg 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are lots of claims for fastest propellor-driven planes apart from the XF-84H. A XP-47J, a variant of the P-47 Thunderbolt achieved 440 knots (505 mph, 813 km/h) in level flight in August 1944. Rare Bear, a highly-modified Grumman F8F Bearcat set a 3 km World Speed Record (528.33 mph (850.26 km/h) in 1989. The top speeds for the experimental VTOL aircraft, Lockheed XFV and Convair XFY have maximum speeds claimed to be 580 and 610 mph respectively (these values are in Wikipedia and other places, but I find them hard to believe). Here's one that really a "can opener": the XF-88B, a propellor-equipped XF-88 Voodoo which may have been supersonic. Is there any interest in writing an article about about "Fastest propellor-driven aircraft"?, or is that opening the can of worms even wider?Silverchemist 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is now very much debatable. One of the only two pilots who flew the XF-84H claims that the speed obtained was much less than the speeds that were published. Quote: "The XF-84H never achieved its designer's dreams of being the first propeller-driven aircraft to attain supersonic flight. In fact, it never flew over 450 kt indicated, since at that speed, it developed an unhappy practice of 'snaking', apparently losing longitudinal stability." Lin Hendrix, test pilot: XF-84H (Hendrix 1977, p. 408.) FWIW Bzuk 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC).


 * Do you want to collaborate on an article about "Fastest propellor-driven aircraft" (or some other name, but same topic)?. I spent about a hour surfing the web looking for what I thought would be a simple answer, but did not get a clear result.Silverchemist 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great topic. Count me in. FWIW Bzuk 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC).


 * I have a problem with all of this. It is very important to establish what was/is the fastest propeller-driven aircraft. The point here is that the XF-84H has been for a long time the official entry in the Guiness book of World Records. I notice that this entry has been deleted and replaced with a myriad of various entries, as if this is reargueing the point. I have read entries where the testers (ie the pilot and ground crew) stated the 620 mph speed was reached (under the supposed limit of 670mph). There are many other factors (height above sea level) Imperial vs American measurements.But the point is that it is the Official record for the fastest propellor driven plane, and to remove that entry after "..I spent about a hour surfing .." is very disturbing behaviour. Don't get me wrong we should find the answer (and I will help doing so) but lets leave the official entry in until it is officially removed. Looking forward to working with you on this Silverchemist. OscarG

I removed the "Airbourne" photo, because it was fake. How do I know this? 1) It had the number FS-060 on the side. That prototype never flew. End of Discussion. 2) It had the propellors obviously painted in. The edges of the propellors in the real model spun at a constant supersonic speed. you would never see them, especially taken from another plane. 3) This is a retouch of another photo which was on the ground. identical light etc. I think this one was made for the cover a a Ravell(?) model kit set. Thanks OscarG  —Preceding comment was added at 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things: firstly, about "official" records from the Guiness Book of Records. Records in Guiness are not "official", in the way FAI records are. I would rather accept the maximum speed given by the USAF Museum (and supported by published, personal anecdotes by one of the test pilots) rather than that given in Guiness. It is entirely possible that the editors at Guiness took the design speed as the actual speed. I did not suggest changing any records "after an hour surfing the web". That search only convinced me that there was a need for a more in-depth review of the subject. I don't believe conversion factors are responsible for any error. I rechecked the conversions and everything is correct to within a couple of units (due to rounding errors).


 * Secondly, the USAF fact sheet clearly states that "The aircraft on display (S/N 51-17059) was the first of the two prototypes produced by Republic. It flew eight of the 12 test flights". Since there were only two aircraft, it would follow that the other prototpe did fly. Comments?  Silverchemist (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! seriously good points Silverchemist!. I have to go and find my sources again. It is great being questioned by someone with some real facts!!. THANKS!! Just to recap the points I have... I read an interview with Hank Baird where he spoke of the 623 MPH speed, and claimed he could have gone faster... I also remember that the ground crew had measured that speed with radar. Re the FS-060 I read that it was not flight worthy ever.. something to do with a moody driveshaft or something hmmm. You have to admit that photo was shonky though :). Apologies if my wording seemed a bit terse, I usually do this late at night :). I agree with your logic re FS-060 flying, and if the evidence is sound then the wording here should be changed. The wording at nationalmuseum.af.mil is a bit casual regarding that point, but it is not ambiguous. I would consider them an authoritative source.. let me find my stuff... its been a while. Re Guiness.. I disagree that they are "unofficial" infact their requirements are very strict.. I may see if I can dig up what they have. I really appreciate your help. Although I started this article, I don't own it, my only wish is that it is accurate. I am trying to get this article up to "A" rate. It still has quite a way to go.

BTW Big thanks also to Bzuk, BillCJ, Potatoswatter, Silverchemist and others for cleaning all this up. Not just from Me, but everyone, who does and will read the article. In two days it will be a year old. Thanks!! :)

Cheers Oscar Oscarg —Preceding comment was added at 10:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be some changes to this article regarding the statements that only one aircraft flew. If you search for 51-17060 at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/index.asp you get a picture of 060 in the air. As stated above the USAF fact sheet states that 059 flew only 8 of the flights. I might also point out that the phrase "was not flight worthy ever" is an opinion and not a statement of fact that 060 did not fly. Many planes that were not flight worthy have flown. DieselDude (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
This is a good article and should be submitted for a peer review. --Colputt 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Loosening of the bowels
This phrase's placement in the text implies that nearby ground crew experienced loosening of the bowels from sonic boom propwash. What about the pilot on the ground and in flight? Clarification is needed for this statement along with the other physiological problems caused by the aircraft. Citations and references, please. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

12.0 propeller diameter
This link says the XF-84H Thunderscreech had a propeller 12.0 feet in diameter, and that the prop rpm was 3000. With π times diameter, its prop tip travel would have been about 37.7 feet per revolution. The speed of sound on the desert floor is about 1125 feet per second, depending on temperature. At about 30 revolutions per second, the tips would go transonic—that would have been about 1790 rpm. With a reported tip speed of Mach 1.18, the tips were going 1327.5 feet per second—35.2 rps or 2113 rpm. The plane's prop rpm was reported as a constant 3000, so something's not right! Ideas? Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The range of temperatures that might have been observed during flights at Rogers Dry Lake was probably 40–115 degrees Fahrenheit, which would expand the range of speed of sound to 1096–1176 fps, per this online calculator. At 40° F, the prop would only need 1744 rpm for the tips to go transonic, and at 115° F, it would only need 1871 rpm. For a 12.0-foot propeller at 3000 rpm, the tips would be moving at 1885 fps which is Mach 1.18 at an air temperature of 601° F, or 316° C. The Thunderscreech would have to be inside a broiler oven to see that temperature, and all the soldered circuits would be melting! The math is just not supporting the text. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very not an aero engineer, but maybe the air immediately around the propeller tip is already moving in the same direction? So the air at the tips has been accelerated out in a vortex by the inside of the propeller. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like editor Bullzeye has attempted to solve the problem by making more of the prop go supersonic: the outer 12–18 inches. This range is not supported by the math. At the hottest desert air temperatures and a rotation of 3000 rpm, the speed of sound would have crept down to a circle about seven-and-a-half feet in diameter, while at the coldest, a circle seven feet in diameter would be transonic. Seven feet in diameter is 3.5 feet in radius, and we have a six foot radius circle. The outer 2.5 feet must be faster than sound, that is, 2.5 feet per blade. That's approximately half of the length of the blade itself, because of the large spinner. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the rpm stat from the article due to this confusion. "Constant speed" is sufficient, barring objections. Hellbus (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have but one question.
And that question is: Who thought it would be a good idea to build this aircraft? The concept boggles my mind. Hellbus (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have but one answer: "Hindsight is 20/20". Experimental aircraft are usually built because we don't know what will work or not until we actually test it in the real world. - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was an experimental aircraft, but the main concern was that most jet aircraft (of the time) would not be able to take off from an aircraft carrier, hence a super duper bells and whistles prop fighter plane (you gotta give it that) was looked into. It was originally a Navy project (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarg (talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradicting ourselves
We have obvious wrong information here. The article states that only 059 flew, but we have a photo of 060 in flight. Obviously both airframes WERE flown... Mark Sublette (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, this article was written quite awhile back and needs to be looked at again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC). Note the article has attracted a tag but in looking over the article, I cannot identify the main problems in contention. FWiW, I'll dig up my original refs to see what can be altered, but style issues are largely a matter of individual taste. Bzuk (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that only one aircraft ever flew is coted from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1956-1957. Anyone have access to this source? Jenkin/Landis' book, Experimental and Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters, states the both protoypes flew. - BilCat (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Jenkins book states that 12 flights had been made by 9 October 1956 - 8 in the first, and 4 in the second. (And 11 made emergency landings!) Given that the Jane's book has a publishing date of 1956, the book was more than likely finalized before the second prototype had flown, or was known to have flown. I'll try to update from the book in the next few days, but I am busy updating my comp, so I might not get to it soon. - BilCat (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the Jane's 56-57, but it is currently in my storage unit. It'll take some digging to extricate it... Mark Sublette (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting
As I indicated in this article has problems with sentence structure and other issues. One example of this is "An afterburner was installed though never used, which could increase power to 7,230 hp (5,391 kW)." The article also has other issues, such as that indicated the section above, concerning which aircraft actually flew. Was it 59, 60 or both? The answer to this may determine how "On the ground, they could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away" should be worded. There are some other obvious issues but I don't have time right now to address them at length, which was why the article was tagged. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are your major problems? Go ahead and address them with an edit. The tag was already disputed as not useful by two editors and a third had already indicated a need for changes. FWiW, instead of edit warring, this is the proper forum for a discourse on the development of the article. Bzuk (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC).
 * No those are not my only issues. As i quite clearly indicated, "There are some other obvious issues but I don't have time right now to address them at length". The third editor who indicated a need for change was strictly addressing the issue of which aircraft flew, not the sentence structure.As for your suggestion that I fix the issues with an edit, what part of ""I don't have time right now to address them at length, which was why the article was tagged"" is difficult to understand? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You obviously are making time to respond here, so taking a few of those minutes spent rplying here, and reverting the tags, you could have simply explained the issues to begin with on the talk page, or tagged the problems sentences or sections with more specific tags. The point is, no one had a clue what your issues were, and Bzuk asked, in his first revert, for you to take it to the talk page. So if you do feel the need to respond, could you simply address some more of the issues, rhater than take up your valuable time explaining that you don't have time? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Three hours ago, when I added the tag, I had no time to do more but I included in the edit summary, "Article has problems with sentence structure", which should have made it fairly clear to anybody fluent in English what basic problems existed, so please don't say "no one had a clue" what the issues were. When I restored the tag I did take it to the talk page but you couldn't wait for the explanation to appear and reverted before I had finished typing. Given the aggressive editing by both of you and the rather peculiar posts of Bzuk on my talk page, you'll have to excuse me if I don't feel like contributing to this article further. It's yours. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Article has problems with sentence structure" was a clear as mud to two fluent speakers of English. Obviously, if two "established editors" can't understand the issues, then the problem is more liekely one of clarity, not fluency. What's obvious to you was obviously not obious to us, yet you assumed it was because we weren't fluent in English? Quite odd. While I'm not a professional writer and editor, Bzuk is, and he has stated he couldn't tell what your specific issues were. Again, you could have taken all the time you spent defending your headers, and actually addressed the specific issues. That fact that you didn't makes me wonder about your motives here, and glad you've moved on. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not, as you have incorrectly stated, assumed that you were not fluent in English. I just don't see how you could read "Article has problems with sentence structure", and not see something as blatantly obvious as "An afterburner was installed though never used, which could increase power to 7,230 hp (5,391 kW)". Maybe I'm just a little more observant. I apologise for that. As for Bzuk, he assumed that problems with sentence structure had something to do with having knowledge of aircraft and that adding a maintenance template is a major change to an article that requires consensus, so his inability to understand what I wrote is not a convincing indication of any error on my part. Claiming that I could have addressed the problem is disingenuous at best. There would have been no need to defend myself if you had looked a little deeper instead of just deleting the template, which you did while I was trying to explain what the problem was. Alternatively, you could have asked. As I explained to Bzuk, when an established editor adds a template to an article, there's probably a damn good reason for doing so and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "which should have made it fairly clear to anybody fluent in English what basic problems existed" obviously implies that anybody not seeing the problems is not fluent in English! You're not necessarily "more observant" than us, but the questioning of the tag should have been a clue that we weren't seeing what you saw. Which you haven't done much to make clear yet, either. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How about sticking to the topic. You slapped a tag on, others did not agree and were asked to take your concerns to the talk page, which you have. The article was already being reviewed as to content, the style issue is still a conundrum but if you wish to participate in any way in its rewrite, feel free. ...as to the "established" editor bit, pleeeeze! FWiW, now let's get to work on the project at hand. 04:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, he's mentioned some" problems, but "No those are not my only issues" clearly states there are more, which he has yet to address, something an established editor shoukd have been able to do by now! As to his specifics about the sentence, "An afterburner was installed though never used, which could increase power to 7,230 hp (5,391 kW)", he certainly could have fixed tht by now, though I don't see it as a flagrant example. It's not perfect, but well-placed comma would make do with what's there. However, it's unsourced, and I'm not certain the T40's two turbines would have produced enough residual thrust to need an afterburner, or increase the supplied hp, afterburners usually being installed after the turbines. So, while this is adressing problems, we could have accomplished alot more by now with some genuine specifics. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will never understand why some people take it all personally when it comes to editing... It's not like they're defending something that they designed themselves...  It would be so much easier if folks would just focus on the real issues at hand - that of presenting factual and verifiable articles...  Sheesh! Mark Sublette (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that Bill Z and I have both done work on the article since the header was added/removed, and have tried to addressed the specifics that the user has mentioned, while both stating that we intend to do further work on the article. We've also asked for more specifics repeatedly, so that they can be addressed in our further work. - BilCat (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more about AussieLegends snitty little comments... I very much aprreciate the work that y'all do.  I see your editing fingerprints all over the Wiki! Mark Sublette (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah! Sorry that I misunderstoond you, but the point is still relevant in response to those "snitty little comments." :) - BilCat (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, someone who thinks and writes like D.. ..own, would think that!! (LOL) How's that new The Da Vinci Code thingamjig goin' FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As to writing style, for a hoot, I took one paragraph from the article that I had exclusively written and submitted it to a writing style check. The analysis indicated that the style matched precisely that of: David Foster Wallace (February 21, 1962 – September 12, 2008) a professor at Pomona College in Claremont, California, noted as an American author of novels, essays and short stories. He was widely known for his 1996 novel Infinite Jest, which Time included in its All-Time 100 Greatest Novels list (covering the period 1923–2006). So, you can see that writing style can be entirely arbitrary and capricious. I did the same for some of the other notables on this page and got matches of writing style to "Ursula K. Le Guin", "Dan Brown", "Stephen King", "Kurt Vonnegut" and "James Joyce." Now, for the fun: match up: Silverchemist, Mark Sublette, BilCat, AussieLegend and Binksternet to their writing styles! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Dan Brown was my match? *Chuckle* That does NOT hurt my feelings! Mark Sublette (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, how about the renown James Joyce?! Who knew ye? (I should have said that the matches were scrambled up!) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I do not know how to access such writing style check software, so I will not be able to determine the matches. I would rather be associated with Le Guin than the others... Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Ursula (you nailed it!), I mean Binky, try: | I Write like... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I put in samples of my writing from the last 20 years, and got "Dan Brown", "Stephen King", "Mario Puzo" and "James Joyce." I think it's all a crock! - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Noise level
Hello! The article claims that this plane should have been the loudest plane ever build. I recall the same claim about the XB-70 Valkyrie, being the loudest plane ever with its 6 jet engines on afterburner at take-off. Does anybody have a clue how this contradiction could be explained? Where there ever some comparable noise level measurements on these two planes? Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From a given distance on the tarmac, there are probably a number of planes that are louder. In particular, the Tupolev Bear uses eight supersonic propellers. The Concorde was also quite noisy. The XF-84H was a single-propeller plane. I think the record refers to the noise level it would subject people to in normal operations: the crew who had to stand nearby to start it, and the pilot who was seated behind the propeller. Unlike those other planes, the XF-84H used an airframe designed for less noisy propulsion. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Grand-Duc. This is an easy one. The tips of the propellers were supersonic, even when it was on the ground. This means they were breaking the sound barrier (!!) and causing constant waves of emanating sonic booms (!!!). The rate of rotation put the noise (somewhere) in the range of a cake mixer, but with the power of a very close Kanga hammer. This is where the name Thunderscreech came from.

The noise of the Tupolov Bear is awesome and legendary, but it simply wasnt as load as this Plane (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Original Material
A little confused as to how come the article in absoluteastronomy.com and this one, mirror each other almost verbatum. Is absoluteastronomy.com part of the WIKI encyclopedia groups ? PFSLAKES1 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was one of many editors who built this article into what you see here. There are a lot of websites which mirror Wikipedia content, and the one you describe sounds like one. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Article
Folks, I have read a lot of article about the XF-84H and this article is by far the best. The various editors have done a great job. Btw, one article in an old issue of AEROPLANE stated that if the USAF version had reached production it would have been armed with a 15mm cannon firing through the prop spinner (ie the USAF developed two versions of the German WW2 revolver cannons, one in 15mm caliber and one in the 20mm caliber). Also, the first test pilot, who was very upset, told the project manager after his first -- and only flight -- that there were not enough people like him to get him back in that cockpit. The project manager was known as a big guy. Again: Great article. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On behalf of the crew who have contributed let me say "Thanks!" Regarding that cannon firing through the two props, dang! Seems like the fast-moving twin props would not offer enough of an opening for a round to pass through. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Twin props? Wasn't it just a constant speed propeller? I've only taken a (very) minor part in this article, so I'll only take a tiny bit of your gratitude, but I find the claim of a cannon hypothetically being fitted in the drive shaft a bit hard to take seriously, seeing as the drive came from so far back, though I would be quite pleased to find out that I'm wrong. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "cannon hypothetically being fitted in the drive shaft" AFAIK, nobody's saying that. The guns'd be mounted in the nose & firing through that gigantic prob hub (or the prop disc, maybe?). Plenty of space for, oh, 8 cannons or about 14 12.7mm. 8o (Yes, 14: 6 cheek, 4 cowl, 4 chin, & arguably 2 each eyebrow & beard... That this probably means they'd have to add a 2d crewman to balance the Cg, I can't say. ;p) TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! Yes, there is but one prop... and it's a doozey! Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the test rig there just isn't room in that gearbox, unless it's got a hole in the middle. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Brutaldeluxe, their was actually more separation between the engine and the gear box and transmission in the actual aircraft I believe. Remember the article said that the shaft went between his legs with a bearing he worried about overheating in flight. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, Here is one of the best article (great humor considering the XF-84H did everything it could to kill him) written back in 1977 on the XF-84H by one of the two civilian test pilots. Page 406; Page 407; Page 408. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Many errors, but here are two minor corrections
Much of the argument in the article about "world's fastest prop-driven airplane" discusses only single-engine/single propeller airplanes, which is a mistake. Regardless of what Guinness says, the world's fastest propeller-driven airplane is the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, a four-engine, eight-prop turboprop.

There are questions about how the pilot could have survived the noise. The XF-84H was noisy only in the plane of its propeller, not ahead of and behind it.

My Air & Space article, by the way, is listed in the article's bibliography. Too bad nobody read it with any care, since it was the product of direct interviews with a number of engineers and pilots, including the late Hank Beaird, who were directly involved with the program.173.62.39.145 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am EXTREMELY interested about any direct information you may have on this topic, in particular evidence that would correct any errors, or help us with the many grey areas. When I first wrote this article there was ironically far more material available (including a story which referenced the 500MPH test, including log book entries and quoting Hank Beaird directly). After about 2 years, I found much of the material had dried up, and frustratingly I had not independently saved any of it. Since then, there is simply a cacophony of references back to this Wikipedia article (and countless articles that copy it word for word) and only a precious few "real" articles such as your Air & Space article. If you could list any errors or omissions, it would be greatly appreciated.

The TU-95 is an amazing aircraft, but it is entirely conceivable that in its few flights, the XF-84h flew faster than the Bear could. I am not saying it did, I'm not saying it didnt. but I do know there is some tantalising evidence out there, and until I have seen it again, I cannot say for sure. I want a definitive answer (if I was a gambler, id put my money on it being the Bear - but we are here for definitive answers, not probabilities). --Oscarg (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Undercover?
Can anybody explain (& source, & add... :) ) why the XF-106 was redesignated? I suspect it was a money issue, so USAF could hide the fact they were spending on a new type. (Same was done by USN on the FJ-2 in this era.)  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there's no official statement of why (the source I added explicitly says "for unknown reasons" as a followup); I'd assume it's for the same reasons as the YF-95 becoming the F-86D, the XF-96 becoming the F-84F and the XF-97 becoming the F-94C; Congress wasn't interested in funding new types at the time, but variations of existing types were A-OK, as I recall. (Interestingly the F-86C went the other way, becoming the YF-93...) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't imagine USAF would be eager to put that subterfuge on paper, but I'll wager somebody knew, if it was being done. It bears keeping an eye out for, anyhow. Thx.  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

One engine or two?
In a youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGlQBx4tys (November 2021) which is quite technical it was clearly stated that there were two engines behind the cockpit, with the shafts running one each side of the pilot to a gearbox in the nose. This isn't mentioned in the article. Can anyone shed light on this? It seems important. Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.68.0 (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Allison T40 was composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving a propeller via a common gearbox. It was considered one engine. BilCat (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)