Talk:Lockheed D-21/Archive 1

Archive 1

L/D source

RE: "The D-21 has the best lift-to-drag ratio of any supersonic airplane ever built. Second place goes to the XB-70." from { http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html#finalflights }: Are we considering LABiker.org a primary source on supersonic lift-to-drag ratios?

Rename article to Lockheed MD-21

These aircraft (when combined) were referred to as the MD-21 (per Kelly Johnson.) I believe the article should assume this name. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't cover everything. This article also includes the D-21B, which was launched from a B-52. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this over-simplified name change. The hybrid name may refer to the whole "system" but the component parts are very much separable, and as Fnlayson points out, the two components have individual development histories. Mark Sublette (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Survivors at boneyard

Someone may want to mention that Google Earth 2007 shows two of them in the boneyard at AMARC. 32°10′10″N 110°51′59″W / 32.168°N 110.859°W / 32.168; -110.859) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.79.154.82 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

D-21 missed in China

D-21 missed in PRC might due to error in guidence system, and china might have recovered this UAV: form memorial of retired Gen. Ma Jiesan? http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=1637 http://bbs.plaaf.net/viewthread.php?tid=3486 Wondering why didn't they plant some charges to avoid the plane to be recovered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.116.252 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to the pics at the "Chinese Aviation Museum" are probably this one (unless it's the booster). It would be nice to tell the story of that one here... Mcswell (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Better quality references

The self-published Vectorsite references need to be replaced with WP:RS ones for the GA review of this article. I'll work on this, but probably need some assistance. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have 2 books on Blackbirds and 1 with a large chapter on them. These don't cover some of the details in the vectorsite.net reference. I am working on rewriting quoted text in the article from vectorsite and replacing that reference with book footnotes where I can. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename to remove slash

Although WP:Article titles does not directly mention avoiding slashes (/) in titles, it is a good idea to remove it per MOS:SLASH. Since this article covers both the D-21 and its original M-21 carrier, I suggest changing to "Lockheed D-21 and M-21". Provide a vote or comment below. Alternate suggestions can be added below as well. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support renaming to "Lockheed D-21 and M-21" or something similar per nomination. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Given that the changes to the A-12 to produce the M-21 were pretty minimal do we even really need to have it in the article's title at all? It's not like there's a whole lot on the changes in the article anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea; perhaps we could list the designation in the variants section of the A-12, and dedicated this article to the drone? You have my support to make the name compliant BTW. Kyteto (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with focusing this article on the drone. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Lockheed A-12 has a variant section on the M-21 and D-21 from probably before this article was started. It would simple to update using text and references from here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds good guys, I'm making it so. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

M12 or M-12?

There are a couple of places on the web talking about the M/D-21 system that use M12 or M-12 for the mother ship. I'm inclined to think they are mistakes due to the relation to the A-12 or a transposition error. However, are there any reliable sources indicating this was at some point an official or internal Lockheed designation? Perhaps transitional? That would warrant a mention in the article. Otherwise, maybe just this note on the talk page to acknowledge the designation is out there, but may not be reliable. --J Clear (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mostly likely just lazy writing and/or checking. The books I have use the dashes on A-12, Q-12, M-21, & D-21. Looks like the 1 & 2 were reversed to 21 before the D-21 and N-21 were named, i.e. Q-12 -> D-21 for daughter or drone and A-12-based carrier named M-21 for mothership. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

4000 mph?

On page 289 of my copy of skunk works (the edition first printed in GB 1995 by sphere, last date 2012) by Ben Rich (and Leo Janos) it clearly states that the D-21: "flew 1,600 nautical miles, making eight programmed turns while taking pictures of the channel islands, San Clemente and Santa Catalina from 92,000 feet at 4,000-plus mph."

This is considerably faster than most sources claim but surely Ben Rich is THE ultimate source for D-21 information and being an edition reprinted some 6 times something like this that would draw notice would have been fixed if it was in error? Does someone have a different edition of this book that says something different? I know 4000mph is a signifigant change to the thinking on open source tagboard specs but the book says what it says. -phrenzy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.190.234 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that a D-21 could do Mach 6+, which is what the 4,000 mph translates to. I think that the aerodynamic heating issues alone would make it a non-started for mid-'60s tech. They struggled enough with adapting the electronics to withstand the heat of 2,200 mph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Captions

User:The Bushranger re "Links in captions are, I believe, discouraged" [1] that seems the opposite of MOS WP:CAPTIONS#Clear identification of the subject "..If the illustration is a painting, the painter's Wikilinked name, the title, and a date give context. ..." , care to revert? Regards Widefox; talk 11:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont think four links to the same target are actually needed in the captions as the subject is already linked in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

None of these are paintings with an artist's name to link to. Links in captions are, in my (never-visiting-an-art-page) experience virtually always removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne Sure WP:OVERLINK should be considered: "...but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions...". So no, the general one link per body in OVERLINK does not apply, but is one "helpful"?: yes. Four "helpful"? debatable. The spirit of CAPTION is be explicit with links:

The Bushranger Suggest the correct place is take that up at the MOS (per above), were they all military? If so, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may apply. The spirit of CAPTIONS seems to be clear "What is noteworthy about the subject of the picture? If there is an article on the subject of the picture, link to it.", that includes linking to subsections of the subject (which I've rarely seen). Widefox; talk 08:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically it doesnt help the reader but just provides visual clutter, it is unlikely that anybody reading the article would suddenly use a link to a related subject from an image caption. So consensus here is that they are not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not been all military, it has been across Wikipedia. The advice you're seeing in WP:CAPTION may well be archaric. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bushranger now we've established links in captions is encouraged per two MOSes, I will establish it is current practice (although the burden should be the other way around): To randomly pick an example for current practice, I went to the front page, took today's FA A Contract with God. Current usage appears to confirm my argument above - per two MOSes - i.e. abundant use of caption linking per the MOSes, e.g. the author Will Eisner is linked in two captions. Any limited consensus on this page has little weight when presented with two MOS, and examples of them being current practice. I will compromise by linking the first of the captions per that consensus (despite expert, limited localconsensus here), and repeat normal practice - take it up at the MOS, not here. No single editor speaks for what does or doesn't help the reader MilborneOne, and I agree any following of a MOS needs justifying (but more importantly exceptions must always be justified), and I for one find it helpful as a reader to have an image of two aircraft being clarified with a single link. Widefox; talk 12:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)