User talk:Tomcat200

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! TomStar81 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC) What do think about this guy that insists the F-14 was not designed to be agile, and it was not even a design requirement?? As the page currently stands, it is incorrect. Every time I try to fix it, he reverse ad infinitum, and won't look at citations.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

1. From MATS "Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased combat agility." This alone proves that agility was a design goal.

2. Rand: "Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes, had to be done with a higher performance, **more maneuverable**, and more versatile airplane than the F-111B: This means the F-14 had to be more maneuverable)" Article does mention VFAX light fighter, but does not mean that this also applies to F-14 which was designed for "other fighter missions", and is proves it was a reason to reject the F-111B.

3. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14.htm Does not state that maneuverability was not a design goal, it just does not mention it. "Variable-sweep wings in the fully swept (high-speed) configuration permit efficient supersonic dash and the carrier-approach requirements could be met with the wing in the unswept (low-speed) position." This does not mean "maneuverability was not a design goal" or that this was a complete list.

4. Earlier statement that fighter community was not concerned about losses to Mig-17s in Vietnam combat are refuted by Rand report. USAF experience did influence Navy decisions as they faced the same threat, Navy did not have aircraft designed for dogfights.

I could use some backup from somebody who knows what he is talking about. Looks like he saw the globalsecurity page and concluded that if maneuverability wasn't listed, it wasn't a design goal.

--Wiarthurhu 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Jerome Beaulier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jerome Beaulier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jerome Beaulier until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)